Posted under Conservatism & Iraq & Politics
First there’s Poland, where the winner in the Prime Minister race campaigned on a platform promising to pull his country’s combat troops out of Iraq:
Tusk said that, by the end of next year, Poland would withdraw its 900 troops from Iraq, where it leads an international contingent of about 2,000 soldiers from 10 nations in the south-central part of the country. …
Tusk’s call for a pullout came as no surprise. He campaigned on promises to end the unpopular mission, clashing on the issue with his opponent, then-incumbent Jaroslaw Kaczynski, who argued that withdrawing would amount to desertion.
But it looks like deserting the US is what Polish voters wanted. Meanwhile, down under on the other side of the world:
Conservative Prime Minister John Howard suffered a humiliating defeat Saturday at the hands of the left-leaning opposition, whose leader has promised to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and withdraw Australia’s combat troops from Iraq.
Labor Party head Kevin Rudd’s pledges on global warming and Iraq move Australia sharply away from policies that had made Howard one of President Bush’s staunchest allies.
What stinks in all this is that voters had to vote for leftists and environmentalists to pry their countrymen out of the Iraq insanity. But that’s one of the consequences of Bush’s and Rove’s political strategy of packaging pro-war interventionism and creeping authoritarianism as “conservative.†So, thanks, Neocons—you’ve given us real conservatives a bad name. Our punishment will be American voters looking to the ugh! Democrats to restore sanity. What a cruel joke—but that’s what’s happened to us.
Weaver on 24 Nov 2007 at 5:25 pm #
Look on the bright side: the environmental, anti-foreign involvement, and trade protections could eat away at the left and make it right-wing, or at least not globalist which seems to be what “right wing” has become.
You never know how things will turn out. Maybe Europe’s clashes with Islam have led it to view the Iraq war as somehow positive, but I suspect the “European right” are globalist, big business shills who cater to an alliance of voters that includes conservatives.
John Médaille of The Distributist Review writes:
Weaver on 24 Nov 2007 at 5:33 pm #
If I was Minister of Propaganda, I’d portray the divide as between the small, traditional and the globalist, progressive with the war clearly being in the globalist, progressive category.
The true Ministers of Propaganda though have already portrayed this as a divide between nation-states, capitalist greed, xenophobic hatred, disdain for the environment and on the other side global humanism, socialist fraternity, multiculturalism, eco-awareness.
The latter doesn’t quite make sense, but the left never does make sense to me.
ERIC on 24 Nov 2007 at 5:52 pm #
“Look on the bright side: the environmental, anti-foreign involvement, and trade protections could eat away at the left and make it right-wing, or at least not globalist which seems to be what “right wing†has become.”
I agree on 2 out of the 3 things listed (anti-foreign involvement, and trade protections) but I don’t believe in enviromental regulations.
Americaneocon on 24 Nov 2007 at 7:15 pm #
Does it matter that voters are supporting leftists, as long as the end game of retreat in Iraq is achieved?
It’s just one big libertarian/paleo/Ronulan/Stalinist axis antiwar coalition, I’d say.
More on this here:
http://saberpoint.blogspot.com/2007/11/david-dukes-hatesite-friend-of-left-and.html
Holiday’s almost over: Back to blog jousting!
ERIC on 24 Nov 2007 at 7:31 pm #
Americaneocon
“I was disgusted to see that Dixie Broadcasting has formed a partnership with David Duke: they will begin broadcasting Duke’s radio program “The Political Cesspool.” ”
The political cesspool is not David Duke’s program, get your facts straight before opining.
“One of the most illuminating aspects of the Klan/Nazi connection is the fact that it supports extreme leftwing causes – not conservative ones. This evil collaboration supports the “Palestinians” and opposes Israel, opposes the war on radical Islam and celebrates extreme leftists like Cindy Sheehan.”
Again not true, get your facts straight before opining.
HarrisonBergeron on 24 Nov 2007 at 7:36 pm #
Eric,
But if AmericanIcon wrote nothing before getting his facts straight, he couldn’t blog anymore.
I need my online entertainment.
Weaver on 24 Nov 2007 at 8:05 pm #
Eric,
the environment must endure to sustain us. The emphasis ought to be on the local environment, but even air and ocean pollution ought to be voluntarily limited. Why gamble?
Some balance between power for defense and convenience for happiness on the one side and on the other side: long term sustenance, preservation of God’s creation, and prudent wariness of too much development and ‘progress’ all at one time. Progress can make a state more powerful… as long as it doesn’t destroy it. But change can be good or bad and the good must be carefully identified and guarded.
Get outside and do a little hunting, fishing, lake swimming, and gardening. Hell, some folks just get binoculars and watch birds and walk in parks. Get out and enjoy real nature. The environment is an issue of the right, but most ‘greens’ are watermelons (they’re red on the inside.)
You wish to preserve whites, yea? Well, that’s akin to an eccentric bird watcher trying to preserve the red-cockaded woodpecker. And your people would need some place to live, preferably not a landfill… And only so many people could fit in your native land, immigrants need not apply for citizenship. And you wish to preserve some sense of autarky and community, so polluting global transit is unwanted, etc.
I’m not saying only white nationalists like yourself could benefit from the environmental issue but rather that any sort of conservatives who care for their people can. Hell, the reason patriots end up calling themselves “conservative” I suspect is that they realise blind change for change’s sake may well destroy the good. And so, they wish to proceed slowly to ensure what is changed is truly for the best. In addition to that of course is that the only change modern society seems capable of is suicidal change, so the conservative holds the knife and prevents its nation from slitting its own throat… Or at least applies pressure to the wound to slow the bleeding.
Harold Crews on 25 Nov 2007 at 12:08 am #
Bush is better at regime change among allies than enemies. What did Kissinger say? It is dangerous to be America’s enemy, but it is fatal to be America’s friend. Something like that.
There is little satisfaction is being proven right; in relation to the effects on Spain and now Australia. The trouble is that regime change is likely to happen here come November 2008. Not that Bush has ever been a conservative. But odds are there will be a Democrat in the White House and a Democrat Congress. That is unless supposed “conservatives” get behind the only Republican candidate who stands a chance against the Democrat. That candidate being Ron Paul.
Weaver on 25 Nov 2007 at 12:42 am #
Ugh, did you read Fleming’s latest in this month’s Chronicles? Why doesn’t he back Paul? And it seems Hillary would be preferred to his female twin, Giuliani (:D ) I don’t get Fleming sometimes…
Regarding regime changes, that reminds me of a quote from Camp of the Saints:
Source: pg. 72-73.
Harold Crews on 25 Nov 2007 at 12:56 am #
I wonder if that has anything to do with most brass leading from the rear? They don’t care to be subject to ‘friendly fire’. I can’t say that I’ve heard much fragging going on in Iraq though.
Weaver on 25 Nov 2007 at 1:14 am #
Oh nah, it means America went to war in Iraq so as to win a political struggle here at home. The ‘real enemy’ in this case would be, well, real conservatives who opposed the war for various reasons among them: it led to big government, blind loyalty, loss of freedoms, a spending deficit, and a warping of conservative minds.
So, if Bush is trying to build a global NWO, the more patriotic leaders in Australia and Spain might be two of his targets, part of an Axis of Reactionaries.”
roho on 25 Nov 2007 at 3:11 pm #
BP and Exxon/Mobile will simply recruit another batch of ambitious politicians. And I’m sure that AIPAC under some different name is preparing a spring offensive against new leadership abroad?………….An alliance for the new century, bouncing power back and forth between neoconservatism and liberalism with paleos being strampled as they run to and fro each time. ………………………..Unless Paul can win!
Andrew T. on 25 Nov 2007 at 4:17 pm #
Everyone,
Take this: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
Patroon on 27 Nov 2007 at 5:47 pm #
What stinks in all this is that voters had to vote for leftists and environmentalists to pry their countrymen out of the Iraq insanity.
You’re are right about this. That’s why Ron Paul’s candidacy is so important, to show that you don’t have to vote leftist to stop a war.
HarrisonBergeron on 27 Nov 2007 at 6:19 pm #
Patroon,
I think that’s why the ruling elite is so terrified by Paul. The message that there is a conservative alternative to the Neocon agenda is inherently subversive.