So What Do Conservatives Actually Want to Conserve?

[commonsense822]

I'm gonna vote....not genocide.

Is it wrong, yes.  A war crime, sure.  Genocide, definitely not.

[Alaric I]

I'm gonna vote....not genocide.

Is it wrong, yes.  A war crime, sure.  Genocide, definitely not.

Oh no you di'int [-X

[BarkAtTheMoon]

:-? Did you really just equate genocide to drone attacks during a war? WTF?

The absurdity of arguments about drone strikes seemingly has no bounds.

Sure he isn't rounding people up and sticking them in gas chambers, but the willy-nilly way he uses them is killing off a lot of people that he shouldn't.  The way you state this you seem to be so far in love in with the guy that he can't do no wrong.

You compared it to genocide, aka the wholesale slaughter of an entire ethnic, racial, etc population, while at the same time saying it's been "hundreds" of deaths. There's nothing rational about that, and it has nothing to do with what I think of Obama.

(see also: Godwin's Law)

[SGOS]

Sure he isn't rounding people up and sticking them in gas chambers, but the willy-nilly way he uses them is killing off a lot of people that he shouldn't.

First there is the issue of whether we should be being there at all, and that could be a legitimate discussion.  

Then there is the issue of whether we should be killing terrorist leaders that plan attacks on the US and other countries.  It doesn't strike me as unreasonable to do this, but that could be debated too.

Then we have to factor in that terrorists hide in the civilian population and therefore, can not be confronted on the battlefield.  This means that if we are to kill terrorists, there will be collateral damage.

If we agree it is reasonable to kill terrorists, we have basically three options as I see it:
1.  Full scale invasion, the most costly with horrendous collateral damage
2.  Drone warfare, far less collateral damage
3.  Special ops commando style raids, usually fewer civilian deaths, but more dangerous to our forces

We hear a lot of anti drone sentiment, but there is also a lot of criticism toward loss of American life as well, and the president has to consider both of those sentiments.  The war on terrorism is an ugly proposition for everyone.  I wish it weren't so, but the whole concept of terrorism is precisely about killing innocents, and IMO intolerable.  No matter how we combat it, someone is going to criticize, but no one actually wants to live with terrorism either.

How would you deal with the situation if you were the president?

[BarkAtTheMoon]

Quite right, SGOS. Personally, I think 2 & 3 are going to be the future of warfare for the most part.

2. Drone warfare, far less collateral damage
3. Special ops commando style raids, usually fewer civilian deaths, but more dangerous to our forces

If there continues to be wars, and I hope nobody's naive enough to think there won't be, the goal of a war is to end it as fast as possible. Whether we should ever have gone to Iraq or Afghanistan aside, people's perspectives of war have become so skewed it's ridiculous, and that's exactly why these whitewashed modern wars have dragged on so damn long. Bush started them with no end goal in mind, lost focus on Afghanistan by starting in Iraq, and with media documenting every move and people live tweeting the action, they're fought with the wrong mindset. People die in war. Period. Ideally, quite a lot more on the other side than on your own. That's how wars end. Civilians die as well and there's no getting around it. There were more casualties on single days of fighting during previous wars like WWII than the entire Afghanistan and Iraq wars. If anything, there's been too few deaths during the recent wars because unfortunately, it takes destruction to end the other side's will to fight and bring them to the bargaining table.

Sherman had it right:

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war [...] I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success. But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for anything. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.

[Plu]

When you look long and hard at a real modern war, you will find that there is no goal that can actually be attained anymore. It's not like the US has any intention of adding the conquered lands to their own, which means they will simply lose by default. Conquering land is the only thing wars have ever accomplished.

Unless you intend to rule a land, covert raids against specific targets is the only thing that might work.

[BarkAtTheMoon]

When you look long and hard at a real modern war, you will find that there is no goal that can actually be attained anymore. It's not like the US has any intention of adding the conquered lands to their own, which means they will simply lose by default. Conquering land is the only thing wars have ever accomplished.

Unless you intend to rule a land, covert raids against specific targets is the only thing that might work.

Agreed. That's a good argument for never having gone in the first place and why we should get involved in wars of aggression, but such is the problem with dealing with a problem like terrorism. Terrorism isn't defined by national borders, governments, front lines, or combatants separate from civilians or even combatants intentionally hiding behind civilians and civilian buildings, so it requires a different approach and why tactics like using the CIA, special forces, and drones, aka quick, stealthy, targetted attacks, have become necessary.

[SGOS]

If anything, there's been too few deaths during the recent wars because unfortunately, it takes destruction to end the other side's will to fight and bring them to the bargaining table.

Sherman had it right:

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war [...] I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success. But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for anything. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.

Since WWII, wars have been characterized mostly by a financially costly lost of life, without decisive victory.  Nothing is really settled.  We fight until we get tired of fighting and then quit without victory and often without resolution.  

One fellow I encountered expressed his dismay and gave me a thick handful of essays on the subject.  He made a reasonable case for hitting the enemy hard and to keep hitting them hard, over and over until "they finally admit they are wrong."  "Admit they are wrong" sounds rather odd.  Those were his words that I gathered meant "until they are willing to comply completely."  Even in the US, as warlike as we are, many people disagree, making for squeamish attempts at defense (or offense), and making the fighting of wars seem like a futile waste of time.

War is brutal and ugly to be sure, but so is the useless flexing of military muscle that doesn't solve anything.  It seems reasonable that wars should be won, but that attitude has become almost politically incorrect because it is as ugly as it is.  Don't get me wrong, I hate war, brutality, and killing, but if we engage in it seemingly without having the stomach for it, we don't seem to solve anything either.

[Alaric I]

First there is the issue of whether we should be being there at all, and that could be a legitimate discussion.  

Then there is the issue of whether we should be killing terrorist leaders that plan attacks on the US and other countries.  It doesn't strike me as unreasonable to do this, but that could be debated too.

Then we have to factor in that terrorists hide in the civilian population and therefore, can not be confronted on the battlefield.  This means that if we are to kill terrorists, there will be collateral damage.

Which is a major issue and why many of them are still out there.

If we agree it is reasonable to kill terrorists, we have basically three options as I see it:
1.  Full scale invasion, the most costly with horrendous collateral damage

In the past yes, with current Rules of Engagement it has greatly redced collateral damage.  Unless someone is just a prick civilian casualties have dropped to the point where they are almost acceptable (I agree 0 is acceptable, but with the few civilians being killed out side of jackasses out there murdering, they are now the lowest that we have ever seen.)

2.  Drone warfare, far less collateral damage

Depends on what you are calling collateral damage here.  The bombs used in drone strikes have a fairly big blast radius, not as pin-point as people seem to think.  Also, there need not be any evidence that the target is there, only that someone believe them to be. This is in the very least, murder.

3.  Special ops commando style raids, usually fewer civilian deaths, but more dangerous to our forces

Nothing these guys do are safe. That is what they want to do, and it's unfair to call it more dangerous as these guys have been on hundreds of these types of raids with no casualties.  I would actually say it is less dangerous as they have the training to do these raids vs the regular infantry shock and awe approach.

We hear a lot of anti drone sentiment, but there is also a lot of criticism toward loss of American life as well, and the president has to consider both of those sentiments.  The war on terrorism is an ugly proposition for everyone.  I wish it weren't so, but the whole concept of terrorism is precisely about killing innocents, and IMO intolerable.  No matter how we combat it, someone is going to criticize, but no one actually wants to live with terrorism either.

How would you deal with the situation if you were the president?

I'm not saying I have issue with the use, I have issue with the policies surrounding them.  It is largely left open for people to do what they feel is right at that moment.  Too little control over how these are used.  It is simply label someone a terrorist and we can blow them up.

[Plu]

When you look long and hard at a real modern war, you will find that there is no goal that can actually be attained anymore. It's not like the US has any intention of adding the conquered lands to their own, which means they will simply lose by default. Conquering land is the only thing wars have ever accomplished.

Unless you intend to rule a land, covert raids against specific targets is the only thing that might work.

Agreed. That's a good argument for never having gone in the first place and why we should get involved in wars of aggression, but such is the problem with dealing with a problem like terrorism. Terrorism isn't defined by national borders, governments, front lines, or combatants separate from civilians or even combatants intentionally hiding behind civilians and civilian buildings, so it requires a different approach and why tactics like using the CIA, special forces, and drones, aka quick, stealthy, targetted attacks, have become necessary.

Ultimately, global problems need global solutions. Of course, people are still far too "my land, not my land" to ever get to that point, so we're fucked, but the solution is right there.

[Alaric I]

Ultimately, global problems need global solutions. Of course, people are still far too "my land, not my land" to ever get to that point, so we're fucked, but the solution is right there.

The only real solution for world peace is to remove the animal element.  Other than that the best we can do is maintain an illusion of peace with our neighbors.

[Plu]

I didn't say to get world peace, I said to deal with global terrorism. The solution is to have a global anti-terrorism force. The problem is that people don't get along because they're fucking idiots, so won't get one for the time being.

[mykcob4]

So you don't like the ammount of problems that I stated that are inherent with the conservatives. I could list many many more. The fact is that the ideology of conservatism serves only 1% of the population. The people that have all the resourses and don't under any circumstances want to share them. After one generation, no matter how those resourses were aquired the validity of holding on to them is invalid.
To acquire those resourses in the first place the conservatives had to illegally exploit something. Nature, humans, governments etc..., one or more had to be illegally exploited to acquire them. To hold on to those ilgotten gains, the conservatives have to use tactics that are repulsive to society like:
Pitting a race against each other.
Religious idolotry.
Demanding blind obedience.
Revisionist history.
Pseudo-science.
Genocide.
Hatred/fear mongering.
Propaganda.
Take war for example. Throughout history those 1%ers have waged a war to acquire more treasure. They have exploited the ignorant to bleed for them in said wars. They justified those wars with false patriotism. They've used religious idolitry to fire up an ignorant base to wage such wars. They have stoked the fires of prejudice to create a climate of fear and hatred to gain public trust and loyalty for said wars. They have used lies and propaganda to justify their criminality. The latest such effort was the NEOCONS effort to control middleeast oil. A commodity that does nothing but make the rich richer. Blood for oil and it doesn't matter whose blood it is so matter as it isn't the blood of the very rich.
Genocide: The Latin American natives had their culture, language, religion, and lives erracticated to fill the coffers of the rich with gold, to acquire land that wasn't theirs. They called it manifest destiny among other such lies.
In modern times their has been conservatives that have erased the right of workers to bargin collectively even though every CEO can negotiate his/her contract on a collective basis. The call it "right to work" as if you as an individual can only have the right to work if you accept what corrupt corporations will give you. Like it is a priviledge to work, and you have no right to safety, a living wage, benefits of anykind. Yet your labor and produtivity makes them extremely wealthy.
In academia this called the affordable widget theory. Meaning workers must be able to afford the widgets they make, but the corrupt corporations have negated the affordable widget and demand people make products at a wage which would never afford them the product that they produce.
I understand the problems of corporations. They have to make a product that is desired and or needed that can be afforded by the consumer. To make that product they have expenses beyond the raw material and machinery used to make them. They don't want to pay for those expenses. Expenses like labor, benefits, environmental responsibility, safe working conditions, liabilities if the product fails or harms the consumer. Conservatives protect corrupt corporations from penalty or any liability for the things that they should be responsible for. They use propaganda and religious idolotry to enforce that protection.

[Alaric I]

So you don't like the ammount of problems that I stated that are inherent with the conservatives. I could list many many more. The fact is that the ideology of conservatism serves only 1% of the population. The people that have all the resourses and don't under any circumstances want to share them. After one generation, no matter how those resourses were aquired the validity of holding on to them is invalid.
To acquire those resourses in the first place the conservatives had to illegally exploit something. Nature, humans, governments etc..., one or more had to be illegally exploited to acquire them. To hold on to those ilgotten gains, the conservatives have to use tactics that are repulsive to society like:
Pitting a race against each other.
Religious idolotry.
Demanding blind obedience.
Revisionist history.
Pseudo-science.
Genocide.
Hatred/fear mongering.
Propaganda.
Take war for example. Throughout history those 1%ers have waged a war to acquire more treasure. They have exploited the ignorant to bleed for them in said wars. They justified those wars with false patriotism. They've used religious idolitry to fire up an ignorant base to wage such wars. They have stoked the fires of prejudice to create a climate of fear and hatred to gain public trust and loyalty for said wars. They have used lies and propaganda to justify their criminality. The latest such effort was the NEOCONS effort to control middleeast oil. A commodity that does nothing but make the rich richer. Blood for oil and it doesn't matter whose blood it is so matter as it isn't the blood of the very rich.
Genocide: The Latin American natives had their culture, language, religion, and lives erracticated to fill the coffers of the rich with gold, to acquire land that wasn't theirs. They called it manifest destiny among other such lies.
In modern times their has been conservatives that have erased the right of workers to bargin collectively even though every CEO can negotiate his/her contract on a collective basis. The call it "right to work" as if you as an individual can only have the right to work if you accept what corrupt corporations will give you. Like it is a priviledge to work, and you have no right to safety, a living wage, benefits of anykind. Yet your labor and produtivity makes them extremely wealthy.
In academia this called the affordable widget theory. Meaning workers must be able to afford the widgets they make, but the corrupt corporations have negated the affordable widget and demand people make products at a wage which would never afford them the product that they produce.
I understand the problems of corporations. They have to make a product that is desired and or needed that can be afforded by the consumer. To make that product they have expenses beyond the raw material and machinery used to make them. They don't want to pay for those expenses. Expenses like labor, benefits, environmental responsibility, safe working conditions, liabilities if the product fails or harms the consumer. Conservatives protect corrupt corporations from penalty or any liability for the things that they should be responsible for. They use propaganda and religious idolotry to enforce that protection.

Ah see, there it is. You have misconceptions about what it actually is.  It doesn't serve one percent of the population, it serves the entire population based on an ideology.  I think you have broadened the question to include ideologies that aren't really stood for here.  Take for instance your genocide, I beleive you are trying to mention things such as the crusades and Hitler, those ideologies are no longer held.  What we are talking about are conservatives as they apply to the United States today.  I will give you that there are changes to be made in the ideals, but the base for it is to conserve the constitution.

[BarkAtTheMoon]

And the disgusting form of conservatism as it's turned into now hasn't existed for very long in US politics, it really only took off with Dubya getting elected and going utterly butthurt insane when Obama got elected. Reagan would borderline be a Democrat today.