Raoul's shallowness of thought

"I noticed you have insulted me many times, this past year.
I didn't bother to answer, true; why, after all?
We've known each other on the web since 1997, on the CNN space forum, and I've noticed you revealed something (that others noticed too, which made me smile and feel vindicated) about conservatism that shows why I know we live on different worlds (luckily).
Why is it so important for conservatists to be rude?
I don't get it."
Well, perhaps, you think if you ignore a problem, it will go away. Sometimes this works. Sometimes it doesn't. Could I be more polite? If that is what you want, I could be more polite to you from this point on. I will even be polite to you over at the flame board- if you wish.
But I don't think I have been "overly rude"- blunt, yes. So I can be less blunt. Smile more, say less.
If you wish me to be more polite/less blunt just say so. Now, if there are other people on this board who want me to be more polite.
Just say the word.
I can be so polite, you won't hear a word.

As far as the question of conservatives being rude. Well, first of all, labels such as "conservative" are misleding. The problem is we could probably argue over how some label is defined. For instance, let's say I said that a conservative is someone who beliefs in the old ideas at foundation of the American Nation (which was a wildly radical and liberal doctrine, two hundred plus years ago). Seen in this light, conservatives have always been rude. Barbaric, crude, rude, plain, simple, uncivilized, and savage to name a few descriptive words of Europeans at the time (and now). Conservative = American Values = New World Paradigm of The Great Experiment. But all this is pretty hopelessly simplistic. George Bush isn't *really* a conservative, you could say he merely has the mannerisms of conservative. In his own words, Bush is a compassionate conservative- which means in a few words "that govt can help it's citizens". Whereas a "true" consevative might view govt more as a neccessary "evil". So, in this same vein, I would say a "true" American Liberal is one who thinks the Experiment as still beginning and a "true" American Conservative as one who thinks the Experiment is done.
I'm not a "true" Conservative, because I think the Experiment has just begun.
Now, the Left is basically immensed in a foreign idea, which is a perversion of American ideals, and it's socialism, communism, Marx, ect. It's a "new idea", which is already quite old:).

"Anyway, if it's too dangerous to send a squad to eliminate Saddam, where's the logic in sending armies of soldiers, planes, missiles, WMD's like cluster bombers and napalm and whatever, to do the same thing? What's more moral? "
Sending in more troops is more moral. Sending in exactly the amount of troops needed is the most moral.
Using too little force is immoral, using too much force is immoral; we *might* have used too little force, but it's *probably* better to error in this direction.

"BTW, sending troops doesn't even seem to help catching either Bin Laden, Mullah Omar or Saddam. "

Well, perhaps this should illustrate to you how difficult it is. It's unlikely it's due to a lack of effort in the area.

"And that occupation and all those soldiers in hostile grounds cost the US taxpayers huge amounts of money."

Yes, it does. Sometimes a nation feels compelled to spend blood and treasure on "stuff" which it percieves to be in it's national interest. And one nation's national interest is not neccessarily AGAINST other nations' national interest. If one nation's national interest was always AGAINST other nations' national interest, the UN wouldn't exist. It is exactly the idea that other nations can cooperate in shared interests which is the basis of the UN.