Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: A. Pole
I've had a strange realization lately:

Many of the old Cold Warriors saw communism as primarily a jewish enterprise. They weren't really fighting for America, or freedom, in the Cold War, they were fighting against what they saw as Internationalist Bolshevik Jewry.

Now that we are fighting Jihadis in the middle-east, the old paleo-con Cold Warriors would just as soon see America destroyed as long as Isreal is too. The pro-arab paleo-cons seem 'OK' with Shari'a law, but I don't think they have really thought it through--they are reacting emotionally as much as the leftists are....

There is a weird nexus of interests right now between the Old Right, the New Left, the Arabists and the Jihadis. There is more common cause between Amadinejad and Pat Buchanan than there is between George Bush and Pat Buchanan.

A weird old queen like Greenwald has more common interests right now with a Palestinian rock thrower than with me.

I mean really, the ISG report was a Paleo-con wish list.

I think the Old Right is going to have to stop acting emotionally and support this war even if it tangentially benefits Israel.

34 posted on 01/07/2007 11:02:03 AM PST by Cogadh na Sith (There's an open road from the cradle to the tomb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: Cogadh na Sith
I think the Old Right is going to have to stop acting emotionally and support this war even if it tangentially benefits Israel.

This war does NOT benefit Israel, neither directly nor tangentially. The only country that benefits from this war is Iran.

40 posted on 01/07/2007 12:32:13 PM PST by A. Pole (Rumsfeld:"In politics, every day is filled with numerous opportunities for serious error. Enjoy it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: Cogadh na Sith
Respectfully disagree with some of your viewpoint. I consider myself 'old right', 'paleocon' or whatever you wish to label someone who thought the high point of American conservatism could be best defined by Barry Goldwater or Robert Taft. I really don't believe in a Wilsonian viewpoint of bring democracy to the world, not do I have the opinion that it is our duty and destiny to promulgate and/or enforce American values on any other nation; whacking someone in self defense is one thing, interfering with what they do as a sovereign nation within their own borders is another. BUT I would never, ever suggest that the United States should not firmly support Israel. Not for any mystical apocalyptic reason but instead on the basis that we have made treaties with the government of that state and that as a sovereign nation we have the right to have any sort of relationship with another nation that we wish, regardless of the 'feelings' of the Arab Street, and that the sentiment of the American people and it's leadership is that we should support a country where a lot of our population originated from, that shares many of the cultural origins of our country and that provides us with intelligence and logistics.
The thing that irks this 'Paleo' is that we still play footsie with our REAL enemies, the Saudis; rather than mucking about in Iraq or Afghanistan we should have looked at where the 9/11 hijackers, their ideology and a great deal of their funding came from.
49 posted on 01/07/2007 3:16:06 PM PST by RedStateRocker (Nuke Mecca, Deport all illegals, abolish the IRS, ATF and DEA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson