Posted on 05/18/2024 3:16:25 PM PDT by RandFan
"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them."
And who said this:
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none."
Ah, another warmongering foreigner daring to throw Reagan at our faces.
Right, because no American today could possibly share Reagan's vision of the US. Okay
Helps being surrounded by NATO. Wait shouldn't Switzerland feel threatened by NATO expansion like Russia?
We must not be like Switzerland and place America’s interests first.
We are protecting our interests in Ukraine.
We are aiding the enemy(Ukraine) of our enemy(Russia) in the destruction of the Russian military, without loss or injury of one US soldier, while sending a warning to China on Taiwan
Well, you’re not an American, so step off. Reagan was not a warmonger and did not want to destroy Russia. He wanted to liberate them.
You do know that the world changed after WW2 with international agreements? Or are we going to go back in history and discuss treatment of natives in the new world?
“rules-based international world order.” (1) What makes you think those “rules” are just, and (2) Who makes them?
So there should be no international courts to deal with border disputes among nations? Lets go back to pre-WW1 and just declare war on each other. Got it, Putin is right, might makes right. Prepare for your new wonderful world with a bomb shelter.
Voted for Reagan in my first election, and every republican after that, but I'm not an American. Whatever
Sure, Jan. You constantly take swipes at the USA. You’re another foreigner pretending to b an American, we have several of you here pushing for war with Russia.
When does the United States get sanctioned and invaded for its illegal occupation of Syria, for example?
I agree with you as well...
Its not hard to know a good deal when you read their own writing. You should give that a try sometime before posturing as an authority
During the 1980s I subscribed to Commentary Magazine, the flagship of neoconservatism. Granted you may not have been born yet.
I don’t recall them ever posting a “classical neocon definition” but what would Podhoretz et al know compared to your favorite little Britannica article.
Commentary was a good deal different than Reagan’s favorite read, Human Events. Neocon writers ranged from a former president of the Young Socialist League to Cold War Democrats disgusted with the McGovern and Carter wing
What they had in common was an activist foreign policy with a liberal domestic agenda.
“ Helps being surrounded by NATO. Wait shouldn’t Switzerland feel threatened by NATO expansion like Russia?”
****************************************************************************
Yes, it was easy for Switzerland to be neutral in WW1 and WW2 because it was “surrounded by NATO”. And here silly me thought that NATO was a post WW2 creation.
Thanks for the enlightenment, Neocon.
There is no question they were protected against absorption by post WWII Russia because of the NATO forces keeping Russia at bay after WWII, but do you think that Germany would have left them alone if WWII had gone their way and once Germany had consolidated their gains and refreshed themselves?
Do you think that Switzerland was not on the menu when the right time came?
That Britannica article is way off base, it makes neocons sound almost like hard core conservatives.
How many neocons have lent support to or joined the Democrats in the last 15 years or so?
I see names that were affiliated with the GOP that now support the American left, and some were saboteurs before they left.
I read nearly every issue of The Weekly Standard, almost from the beginning until it closed. (Being a bookworm I was in a bookstore that carried it at least once a week.) I don't remember it being all that "liberal" on domestic issues, which is why I picked out the Britannica article when I needed a definition that could be posted online. YMMV, perhaps influenced by the vicious hatred of Neocons on this forum? In any case I'm not allowed to call myself Conservative, since the forum has redefined Conservatives as being required to be knee-jerk Isolationists.
Oh, dear Chad, how many more hundreds of Billions of American taxpayers’ dollars and how much larger must our national debt increase before you and your fellow neocons are satiated? Or are you INSATIABLE and demand that the bleeding continue until the patient (America and Americans) is dead?
It’s our enemies who are insatiable.
That would be, I assume, the enemies who are allowing and encouraging the continuous invasion of our country by more and more third world invaders while simultaneously trying to impoverish Americans and destroy the American currency. Perhaps you don’t consider them enemies.
I don’t buy that def exactly
I was around then watching many of them peel off from TNR in early 80s
And elsewhere
By that you mean Mexico? Yeah, Mexico is on my list. Ditto Venezuela, Cuba, et.al.
Nobody ever had a precise definition. There was no "Neocon Creed". That Britannica article was the nearest I found to what I remember.
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.