![H.J.Res._114_Iraq_Resolution_Votes_October_2002[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/t3N2Q27.png "H.J.Res._114_Iraq_Resolution_Votes_October_2002[1].png")
That war followed the LIBERAL INTERVENTIONIST and neocon models, which are profoundly un-conservative. Why did so many right-leaning American support this idiotic enterprise?
>>70356275
american cuckservatives are retarded
before Trump, you would be fully justified in being a democrat just to spite mainstream Republicans
>>70356275
Everybody and their grandmother wanted to do to war after 9/11
>>70356645
Public support for the Iraq war in the US never exceeded the low-60's, and was as low as 15% toward the end of the decade.
>>70356275
because almost all the conservatives are neocons, and the president at that time was a neocon.
>>70356645
the Iraq war had nothing to do with 9/11, We were in Afghanistan already over 9/11.
Because the idea of being a beacon of justice and democracy is part of American identity. The idea of America being a fundamental diferent country has also been used as an argument for isolationism, but ever since the early 20th century interventionism is fundamentally American.
Being that it is such a cornerstone of the USA, righteous interventionism is advocated by conservatives - rejecting it would be akin to rejecting the nation. Other than that, superpowers always fancy a chance to gain some power. Especially when driven by conservatives, since they tend to value strong leadership and more direct approaches (whenever Obama is easier on foreign policy issues, he is accused of weakness - basically, obsession with the "cuck" meme lives strong in the hearts and minds of conservatives).
>>70357816
Bloodlust, we wanted to blow up some sandniggers the bush administration capitalized on it
>>70356275
jews
>>70357613
Neocons were never and have never been "conservative" in any real sense. Their entire philosophical worldview is based on something called the Marburg School, a neo-Kantian movement that pushed certain universalist ideals.
That stuff would be way too long and abstruse to explain in a /pol/ post, but those guys were never conservatives. Being anti-Stalinist =/= being a conservative. Trotsky himself was anti-Stalinist, after all...
>>70356275
Very simple.
The Jew controlled media told Americans that Iraq did 9/11.
>>70359022
>That stuff would be way too long and abstruse to explain in a /pol/ post, but those guys were never conservatives.
It's not complex at all.
They're a bunch of fucking kikes who wanted to fuck up Iraq for Israel.
>>70356275 (You)
>Neocon
The answer was in the question
>>70356541
>before Trump, you would be fully justified in being a Democrat just to spite mainstream Republicans
This is literally what every American media network pushes, except for Fox, which is a cuckservative haven.
>>70359191
I mean the Marburg school stuff, which began around the turn of the last century. One of their basic premises was that all realms of human knowledge (and not just the sciences) could be systematically assessed and understood in terms of universalist principles.
In math terms, it's kind of like the idea of a Lamda calculus, where all "statements" are posed within a narrow set of rules which are logically-coherent.
So therefore, it would be theoretically possible to develop a "scientistic" model of politics, just as it would be possible to develop one for cell biology or any other such thing.
Traditional conservatism makes no such ontological claims.
