Posted on 03/13/2004 10:56:05 AM PST by quidnunc
Why yes, I have heard of that. And contrary to you, I've actually read it. Here are a few excerpts you might find of interest
as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. . .In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense.
Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers
Interesting isn't it that neocons use this as some sort of blank check to advocate their wars of 'defense' when in fact Monroe went on to say that in the case of such wars as WWI we wouldn't be involved. Also of note this covers our defense. Not unprovoked wars looking for 'phantom' WMDs
How about "Demopublicans" or "Republicrats". Either fits. Both parties favor expanding government, open borders and one-way trade deals with the 3rd world. Mix the aggressive foreign policy of Republicans with elements of the Democrats' social agenda and a Neo-Con is formed.
Excellent point. A good friend of mine is a Wilsonian and is about as Neo-Con as one can get. There is a strong tie there.
I'm not a neo-con and using it as pejorative, by the likes of you, is far funnier and more revealing, than you could ever imagine. LOL
Apparently not, as you ridicule any stance other than that of the current administration. Matter of fact I've seen you use that statement on every document the Founders penned from the Declaration of Independence to the Federalist Papers. However, your stance on most, if not all, issues discussed come in direct conflict with the stances of these fine gentleman. You're like most politicians, pay lip service to the documents but ignore their intent. Are you sure you're not a Republican Senator?
I'm not a neo-con and using it as pejorative, by the likes of you, is far funnier and more revealing, than you could ever imagine. LOL
I think you just run back to name calling when you're backed into a corner. Dispute what Monroe stated as posted from the Monroe Doctrine. Can you do that sweety? Is it too much for you to provide evidence from the Monroe Doctrine to refute my stance? Here, I'll even help you out
It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense.That's about all you've got to stand on but I imagine in the twisted minds of liberal warhawks that would advocate this nation of states sending armed forces around the world 'spreading democracy' for no other reason than to state another nation's form of government somehow 'menaced' our own.
And FYI, you are by definition a neocon. You have argued support for FDR policies, armed conflict around the world even when it doesn't directly affect this nation of states, and big government policies signed by the current occupant of the Oval Office. I take back what I said earlier. You're not a Republican Senator, you're really Irving Kristol aren't you?
You twist things that I post, you claim that I have said things I never have, attribute things to me, that are erroneous, outright lies, and/or mangled misrepresentations of what I have posted.You're a fraud and a liar.
The only saving grace, of your posts,is that it shows everyone, just what to never do.
Since this isn't a fact based discourse, on your side, boring,and just more repetition of the same old same old, that you always post, devoid of fact, reason, and thought, I'll let you have the last word. Go for it...LOL
I love it, another LOL. And yet again, not one statement of fact, refutation of the argument, and yes we have here (as it wouldn't be a nopardons post without one!!)
You're a fraud and a liar.
a slur.
I am begging you to please provide some semblance of your understanding of the Monroe Doctrine besides the nopardons answer to everything, 'I've read it and unlike like you, I understand it.' Since we both accept that you care not for the Constitution (except perhaps as a 'Go Bush' catchphrase), the intent even of Madison for most of the issues to remain at the state level (as outlined in Federalist 45), must we also accept your ignorance of the intent of the Monroe Doctrine?
You twist things that I post, you claim that I have said things I never have, attribute things to me, that are erroneous, outright lies, and/or mangled misrepresentations of what I have posted
Dear lady, you posted two responses to me
Post 152
Ever hear of the Monroe Doctrine?
Of which I responded kindly and even quoted from said document to support my point and
Post 165
I've read it and unlike like you, I understand it. I'm not a neo-con and using it as pejorative, by the likes of you, is far funnier and more revealing, than you could ever imagine. LOL
Of which the only thing I could get out of that amounts to 'neener, neener, I'm not you are'. At no point did I 'twist' either of your posts (as I can't see how those posts could be twisted) or misrepresent you which I don't think anyone could do. You misrepresent yourself as a conservative quite easily with no help from any others.
Since this isn't a fact based discourse, on your side, boring,and just more repetition of the same old same old, that you always post, devoid of fact, reason, and thought, I'll let you have the last word
Please allow me this. LOL!! If I provide statements from the Monroe Doctrine to support my point, am I not providing facts, as it were, to the discussion? How is providing statements from these documents, and the intent by the men who wrote them more 'repetition' 'devoid of fact, reason, and thought'?
Extremely perceptive and well said! Best I’ve read here in days.
If you ask a neocon--"How is it in the interest of the US to support Israel?" hoping for some more practical or strategic reasons--and you'll likely find yourself called "Anti-Israel," a "Pat Buchanan" or the "antisemite Joe Sobran." Such quick reversions to guilt-by-association and other ad homina--
|
|
paleocon |
neocon |
liberal |
|
against big government |
no |
no |
no |
|
America First foreign policy |
yes |
yes |
no |
|
regional politics |
no |
no |
no |
|
fair trade |
yes |
yes |
yes |
|
Protect[ionist to the point of threatening] American Jobs |
yes |
no |
yes |
I think regional politics means states rights. But paleos are the first to promote national laws to preserve American Jobs and traditional morality.
Fair trade? I think that’s their new buzz word for attacking free trade and promoting the micromanagement of the economy. The old word, protectionist, was too tarnished by reality. Sounds a lot nicer doesn’t it?
I’ve had some problems with the guy you’re replying to. He’s not all together.
We should support Israel because they’re generally in the right regarding their right to exist. They’re under attack not because they displaced indigenous tribes of Arabs who want justice, but because they represent an idea ("Western culture" including freedom and democracy) that threatens their Islamo-fascist neighbors. And we have a moral responsibility (for our own benefit) to defend good from evil everywhere, depending on our ability.
The defeat of Israel would empower radical Islam around the world, and allow their version of history to prevail, the one that labels Israel and the West as aggressors. I’m not well informed on Islam, but I’ve read enough here to presume that Moslems are not going to be satisfied with integrating into the West and adjusting into a compatible role.
I think that either Western or Islamic values clash for dominance everywhere they coexist. Israel is as much a thrust into the heartland of Islam with Western values as the closest mosque is to your values. (And I say this as an atheist.)
I know the above wonders a little, but I needed to make a point first: Israel is a representative of our values in a frequently violent clash of values. If you accept just that, then please let me rephrase your question: “Why should we support our western values?”
I didn’t disagree. In fact I defined “moral responsibility” as being for our “own benefit” while saying that was our reason for helping Israel. Yet you continue to argue against something that I didn’t say, “being a good sport”, being "friends", and “nice thoughts”
And I notice that you didn’t directly address my question to you.
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.