Posted on 05/06/2008 8:59:30 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
I didn’t say right now, we missed the opportunity. And how would a world governed solely by the USA would be any different than what we try to do now? Only difference is, the UN wouldn’t tell us how wrong we are in our policies, we wouldn’t be giving aid to foreign countries, and we wouldn’t have radical nuts trying to kill us simply because we don’t believe in their political projects (then again, maybe we would).
Of course, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Point is, the basis of this article states we should sow up the borders (agreed), stop exporting our ideas (how is freedom a bad idea?, disagree), stop imposing our wills on countries we shouldn’t be in (semi-agree, but we shouldn’t have let politicians run wars, and let the generals do what they need to do to break the wills of the enemy instead of being soft). We shouldn’t trade with anyone else in the world (well, unless we start drilling and mining our own soil tomorrow, that’s not going to work), and we better find a way to lower our debts to others to boot.
Unfortunately, issolationism is nice, but the current geopolitical state does not allow us to revert back to the 1800s. Provocing other nations isn’t good, but currently, the middle east provoked ourself and one country violated numerous orders of the UN (Iraq) and one other one (Iran) is defiing the request of the world.
I guess for the sake of progress and “conservatisim” and smaller government, we should stop, retreat, and watch as our economy collapses (rest assured the oil pumps would stop flowing to the USA if we do that), all trade partners dry up, and then we have the Chicom Army knocking on our door because we can’t pay our debts to them.
We’re in a mess, that’s for sure, but sealing up the boarders, isn’t the answer, and I agree, bigger government and more taxes, isn’t the answer either.
He’s partly right. Neocons are Big Government types and that is NOT conservative.
but when people like this use “neoconservative” in a negative way, they INVARIABLY mean “Jews.”
And his kind of “conservatives” have no regard for national security. Tehy really are isolationaists, and that is neither practical nor desirable.
You can make a case, as many do, that our international involvements, especially where troops are concerned, should be only in the protection of clear national interest. That’s a different thing from isolationism.
We must take the measures necessary to crush the terrorists who threaten us. That so many paleos fail to see this is disturbing.
There is a place between the neos and the paleos. It’s called conservatism. It rests on economic freedom, constitutionalism, strong defense, and traditional values.
I once wrote an article showing that Robert Welch was a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy.
His mission was to discredit the conservative movement.
“oppose runaway outsourcing of jobs”
Out-sourcing was inevitable just as soon as the gov’t said to schools and corporations:
01. ) We’re going to start telling you who you can and can’t let enter your schools and to whom you can and can’t award scholarships. You have to lower your standards.
01A. ) We’re going to start telling you who you can and can’t hire. What’s more, we’re going to start telling you who you can and can’t fire. You have to lower your standards.
In effect, the gov’t was saying, “We’re willing to accept less than quality. We’re willing to accept mediocrity.”
Corporations, at that point, said, “OK, if you want mediocrity we’ll give it to you and we’ll have to spend a lot less money for it.” They started out-sourcing because it is MUCH cheaper AND mediocre.
“(1) The Great War Against Communism - which lasted from 1917-1991 - is over.”
You simply CAN’T be serious.
Russia is rearing its ugly, communist head.....again.
Cuba, Venezuela, Communist China, North Korea, several nations in Africa. The Communist Chinese now control the Panama Canal. The former Russian bases in Cuba are now controlled by the Communist Chinese.
“The Great War Against Communism”, as you have so named it, was NEVER over.
If you mistakenly think that Russia is suddenly our “friend” then I truly feel sorry for you, sir.
I rest my case.
Kristol would later credit neoconservatism for helping to “modernize” the Republican Party. He heaped praise on Ronald Reagan as the “first Republican President to pay tribute to Franklin D. Roosevelt.” ....Let me sum up. Neoconservatism means socialistic big government and internationalism. It dislikes national independence and favors world government under the United Nations. It urges the use of the U.S. armed forces in UN peacekeeping missions, policing the world, and getting bogged down in undeclared wars. It champions NAFTA, CAFTA, the World Trade Organization and the new drive toward a North American Union.
So Reagan was a socialistic big government internationalist neocon?
See post #4 for the pre-emptive bringing up of "the Jews" on the anti-neo-con side.
Gee, THAT was brilliant.
If you can unplug your Ipod and switch off American Idol long enough, do try to conjure an ORIGINAL THOUGHT just this once.
There’s a nation at stake here, funny man.
Is it considered an honest debating tactic to implore restraint from name-calling only to engage in it yourself at the first opportunity?
(2) China is not a basket case, but it is an imploding demographic timebomb.
(3) Militant Islam, if it is allowed to grow and spread, has demographics on its side.
Communism is a spent force in the West. Militant Islam is just beginning to realize its strength.
Thank you, I am well aware that Wikipedia can be edited, but their current definition of Neoconservatism is quite accurate and probably the quickest way to find a full description of the term without having to dig up old Irving Kristol articles. You should read it.
I supported Duncan Hunter until he dropped out.
I am not in agreement with much of the Bircher’s philosophy — the other poster who described them as the rights version of Trotskyites got it about right.
Hunter was very Reagan-like, I agree. More so than Paul. I would still argue that Paul’s conservatism is still the more authentic original conservatism. If your definition of conservatism = Reagan, then Duncan is your man.
Reagan did a lot of good things, but he also was was not a fiscal conservative. He grew the debt by 3.8X. He did this by deficit spending, year after year. One can argue that he needed to do that to win the Cold War, but that is an unprovable assertion, either way. He also let the domestic budget grow and grow. His cutting tax rates did raise total revenue, so that one aspect of the supply side worked as predicted, but, and this is a big but, it has created a generation of economic “conservatives” who are morons. Larry Kudlow and John McCain being two prime examples, who think simply lowering tax rates will fix the economic problems.
Reagan never took on the big domestic problems: he didn’t try to eliminate Social Security, he didn’t try to eliminate Medicare or even Medicaid. He didn’t roll back FRRs socialism, however much he personally disliked it. He tended toward genial aphorisms rather than harsh cticism.
In going after these sacred Cows, along with his focus on the monetary system, Paul is reviving a conservatism much older than Reagans.
Reagan was an aggressive internationalists. In WW2 it was the Republican Party that led opposition to American invlovement. Ditto in WW1.
Paul has called for elimination of the IRS WITHOUT adding a new national sales tax. That might be totally unrealistic, but it is the more basic conservative position.
I probably agree more with Duncan Hunter on positions. I don’t think we can go back to 19th Century isolationism. I don’t think we can get back on the gold standard.
Hunter was a least a plausible candidate. Ron Paul was Don Quiote, jousting with windmills. But still, he does define the ultimate in real-deal old-school conservatism. More so even than Hunter. (Whether that is good or bad, depends on your views.)
Then there are the PaleoCons - Libertarians who vote for the Third Party wackOs which elects Liberal Democrats
1992
Clinton 43%
G.HW Bush 37%
Perot 19%
Third Party also gave us Carter.
The PaleoCons - Paulites, etc are stocking horses for the Left as that is who wins when they divide voters.
bttt
Maybe you're on to something. It sure seems odd that a supposedly conservative organization would spend so much of its energy attacking Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and other conservative leaders.
I must say that your idea for conquest of the world by the USA, presumably under threat of atomic annhilation, is perhaps the most un-American idea I’ve ever heard.
The principles of the Declaration of Independence apply just as much to other peoples as they do to us. We have no more right to conquer and rule others against their will than the British had to rule us against our will.
More importantly, a military regime ruling others is utterly incompatible with freedom and democracy at home. A military coup would have to follow within a few years as the people get tired of the hassle, for the empire to be maintained.
Most important of all, the American people at the end of WWII had absolutely no desire to rule the world. They wanted peace. Conquest of the world could only have occurred after the Constitution was overthrown, as the people didn’t want it.
Dang near nobody did, except perhaps Patton, and he wasn’t the most stable guy around by that time.
We are “world building” right now, much like the Romans did (though they conquered and then pillaged and taxed their conquries). I started reading Empire of Debt (forget who by) but within the opening chapter, my eyes have changed somewhat. We export our “freedom” and we “finance” it with foreign money. Yet, we still “import” a lot of consumer goods.
My points, that you seem to have lost in this is that in the current world, the USA would be “margin” called on their debt, and if they can't pay, we'll still end up with war (or the entire global economy will collapse, and if that happens, we still probably end up with war).
The solution is not to NOT spread freedom (and I'm all for doing it with the support of the freedom parties of countries that aren't necessarily friendly to the USA), but then you have the likes of Reid and Pelosi standing in the way (Columbia and the resistance party in Chavez's home country Venezuela).
Patton was (and if you believe completely in the man's lore) a Warrior. He wanted to fight to CRUSH the enemy (something today's Generals may not even know how to do. Not just stop them, but break their wills to even DARE touch another arm). Patton wanted to kick the crap out of the Reds, and wouldn't the world be a different place today, if we had. Maybe we wouldn't even have some of the issues we have now.
But to reiterate, please don't think I'm for nuclear proliferation and blowing everyone off the face of the map. That is neither smart, humane, or remotely feasible without the ends of time (speculative).
I’m sorry, I thought a few posts back you expressed your dismay that the US hadn’t conquered the world “when we could have” right after WWII.
I merely expressed my opinion that, A. this wasn’t something we were capable of doing, and, B. that it would have been an appallingly bad idea to try it. Not to mention highly immoral.
Any strategy that would have made it even possible to invade and conquer the USSR would have required the use of nukes.
If I misunderstood you, please explain what you did mean by your original comment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.