BTW: Isolationism=Organized surrendermonkeyism and cowardice.
Globalism=League of Nations/United Nations multilateralism usually for the advancement of various evils including socialism and world-wide Kumbayaism and rejection of morality.
INTERVENTIONISM= Wage war where, when and as we (the US) pleases for US purposes whether the UN or other nations like it or not. It honors and recognizes traditional American exceptionalism and understands that we trust ourselves and very few who are not among us.
You praise the feckless wimp Eisenhower who was as much a multilateralist as our nation has ever tolerated in a POTUS much less in a general. His despicable kowtowing to the soviets as a general and as a POTUS was consistent with his (and your) nervous breakdown over the fact that the USA has an ongoing interest and need to be so very well-armed as to deter ALL opposition. You delude yourself into believing that Ike's campaign promise suggesting that he would end the Korean War was responsible for his election. Or that Nixon got elected in 1968 somehow as an antiwar candidate. Ask Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin but since both are dead, ask Jane Fonda or ask McGovern or ask Ted the Swimmer. It is true that Nixon dirtied his skirts by engaging in endless and generally useless diployak with the soviet bosses and, even worse, with chairman Mao and Chou-En Lai (who at least agreed not to have a conniption over US interdiction of rail lines through China by which the soviets were arming Ho Chi Minh).
The simple principle is that when we choose to fight we are obligated to do whatever is necessary to win. Our presidents often fall short of that dedication to say nothing of the average Congressional quisling. Somalia and Lebanon are no more necessary to US interests than was Kosovo (another example of a POTUS Slick Willie on autosmooch as to Islamofascist patoot). We Americans drive automobiles. Oil is (until replaced technologically at reasonable cost) a vital interest of the US. Iraq has plenty of oil. If the locals in Iraq or Iran or Venezuela or Saudi Arabia or similar countries cannot get their act together and guarantee a flow of oil, we have to do what we have to do even if it costs a bit of money for the guys in the back room at the Hometown Bank on Main Street.
We can do a more efficient job. We can smash the Islamofascist enemies better than we have. There is absolutely no reason to believe that paleo-ostriches and neo-Neville Chamberlains will do anything whatsoever much less more effectively or more efficiently. They are addicted to coma as usual.
All paleowhatevers do is blubber incoherently, claim they would fight whatever war we are not presently fighting, oppose any war that we do fight, obsess about their taxes, and ignore the fact that we have lost fewer soldiers killed in this war of more than four and one half years' duration than there were people killed on our highways in any MONTH of the 1960s when we were used to domestic highway casualties of 50,000 per year or 12K+ per month.
Perhaps most hilariously of all, you want to describe the paleowhatevers as noble populists fighting the elitist regulars. James Baker is no paleo but he is no warrior. He is the very essence of elitist. So few people of any social description would be caught dead accepting the idjit paleodelusions that the paleowhatevers will have a hard time selling themselves as "populists." Interventionists = populists. Globaloneyists or INTERNATIONALISTS = Elitists. Paleowhatevers = a small slice of mental patients dedicated to national extinction through paleopeacecreepism and general inaction. The rest of the peacecreeps = frank leftists bright enough to have a clue as to the nature of their foreign policy and their hatred of the USA.
Reagan Democrats vote as they please without regard to party. When the GOP has the spine to nominate a nominee with manhood who will reject the elitism of the country club, the polo club, the yacht club, the board room, the obsessive materialism and who will fight our nation's enemies to their death whenever US interests are at stake and will thumb his nose at the UN. They think of the GOP as the party of their boss but will support it when it is aggressive in cracking down on crime, terror, babykilling and social perversions. When the GOP is despised by members of the general public, it is over economic issues and fiscal elitism. Under Slick Willie, the Demonrats wanted to get a piece of the "fiscal conservatives" while insisting that they were helping the poor.
American troops should NEVER be deployed under the UN commanders or as part of a UN force. The US should get out of the UN and kick it out of the US. (Even the Birchers are right twice a day).
Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were Democrats. I had not realized that they were reds as you claim in saying that the Democrats always were reds. I doubt that Ann Coulter believes that either. In fact, I warrant that the Democrats were the conservative party in American politics until FDR although there were many good Republicans as well.
If you don't like my writing style, you are not the first and won't be the last. Ask me if I care. I am not writing to curry favor with you. You write your way and I shall write my way. At least I don't shame myself by adopting paleowhateverism in whatever writing style.
Cutting and running (or fleeing in terror in the face of the enemy) are descriptions of "ending a conflict" without the unconditional surrender of our enemies.
You say that Nixon kept us in VietNam 4 years longer than necessary and he could have gotten the same "terms" (American surrender at the expense of our Vietnamese allies) when he first took office. Surrender is always reasonably easy compared to victory but victory was what is always necessary. Of course, you believe that there are "limits to American power." Logically, that would seem to be true but those "limits" are and were a LOT further from us than you imagine then and now. General Giap, in his memoirs, conceded that we had beaten him and the NVA by the time of the Tet Offensive but that the reds wondered in amazement at the gullible American public swallowing the propaganda of the leftist MSM. Ronaldus Maximus observed in 1968 that it would take six months and no more to not only defeat North Vietnam but to turn it into the world's largest parking lot with stripes. He also turned out to be an infinitely better president than the likes of Eisenhower or Nixon, much less Ford. It is regrettable but true (and necessary) that soldiers are killed in wars. Each is precious as is such sacrifice but surrender to the evil being fought is an ultimate evil and an absolute dishonor to each dead and wounded American soldier. Something that paleos and other peacecreeps never quite grasp.
We need and we shall have as many nuclear boomers and attack subs as we need or might ever employ in worst case scenarios. If Teheran misbehaves significantly, we might want to consider a practical demonstration of what one boomer could do to eliminate the problem of Islamofascism. If Saudi Arabia ever became a very severe problem, the names of Mecca and Medina come to mind.
"Minding our own business" is paleoweaselspeak for downsizing our nation, turning it into an amoral five and dime, ignoring the rise of our enemies while they fatten themselves on lesser prey until they can challenge us and rendering it unwilling to act when action is morally called for. Sean Penn, Nancy Facelift, Dingy Harry, Ted the Swimmer, UpChuck Hagel, Weepy Walter Jones and the paleopipsqueak are NOT conservatives. They advocate cowardice as national policy as did John Sherman Cooper, Charles Mathias, Pete McCloskey and a handful of other treasonous weasels in the GOP during the Vietnam War.
I got a bellyful of peacecreeps and other traitors during the Vietnam War and I am not about to make believe that today's paleopeacecreeps have anything to do with patriotism much less with conservatism when they seek (like paleoPaulie) to ally themselves with America's enemies in times of shooting war.
Really?
I haven't seen one yet!
So, why haven't we hit Iran for killing U.S. troops?
BTW: Isolationism=Organized surrendermonkeyism and cowardice.
And what do you call those who do not criticise our Commander and Chief (who I voted for twice) when he doesn't do what he promised, engage all those nations involved in world wide terrorism?
I call them hypocrites.
Globalism=League of Nations/United Nations multilateralism usually for the advancement of various evils including socialism and world-wide Kumbayaism and rejection of morality.
Just like Bush and the other major GOP candidates are pushing.
You remember Bush, he was the guy who wanted McCains amnesity bill to pass.
INTERVENTIONISM= Wage war where, when and as we (the US) pleases for US purposes whether the UN or other nations like it or not. It honors and recognizes traditional American exceptionalism and understands that we trust ourselves and very few who are not among us.
Well, that is very fine, but none of major GOP candidates are advocating that approach.
They will all beholden to the UN and its restrictions.
So, we are talking about the real world we are living in, not your fantasy world.
You praise the feckless wimp Eisenhower who was as much a multilateralist as our nation has ever tolerated in a POTUS much less in a general. His despicable kowtowing to the soviets as a general and as a POTUS was consistent with his (and your) nervous breakdown over the fact that the USA has an ongoing interest and need to be so very well-armed as to deter ALL opposition. You delude yourself into believing that Ike's campaign promise suggesting that he would end the Korean War was responsible for his election. Or that Nixon got elected in 1968 somehow as an antiwar candidate. Ask Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin but since both are dead, ask Jane Fonda or ask McGovern or ask Ted the Swimmer. It is true that Nixon dirtied his skirts by engaging in endless and generally useless diployak with the soviet bosses and, even worse, with chairman Mao and Chou-En Lai (who at least agreed not to have a conniption over US interdiction of rail lines through China by which the soviets were arming Ho Chi Minh).
I praise Ike for not getting U.S. troops commited to a war that he was not going to win.
Unlike the current President.
The simple principle is that when we choose to fight we are obligated to do whatever is necessary to win. Our presidents often fall short of that dedication to say nothing of the average Congressional quisling. Somalia and Lebanon are no more necessary to US interests than was Kosovo (another example of a POTUS Slick Willie on autosmooch as to Islamofascist patoot). We Americans drive automobiles. Oil is (until replaced technologically at reasonable cost) a vital interest of the US. Iraq has plenty of oil. If the locals in Iraq or Iran or Venezuela or Saudi Arabia or similar countries cannot get their act together and guarantee a flow of oil, we have to do what we have to do even if it costs a bit of money for the guys in the back room at the Hometown Bank on Main Street.
More empty rhetoric.
We can do a more efficient job. We can smash the Islamofascist enemies better than we have. There is absolutely no reason to believe that paleo-ostriches and neo-Neville Chamberlains will do anything whatsoever much less more effectively or more efficiently. They are addicted to coma as usual.
I do not see any U.S. Bombers flying over Iran?
It isn't Ron Paul who is President, it is George Bush, who hasn't struck Iran in retailation for their actions against us in Iraq, even though U.S. troops are being killed.
So, while you rail against Ron Paul, it is the current President you should be attacking for his refusal to take on Islamic facism head on as he promised after 9/11.
But that would upset his neocon buddies.
All paleowhatevers do is blubber incoherently, claim they would fight whatever war we are not presently fighting, oppose any war that we do fight, obsess about their taxes, and ignore the fact that we have lost fewer soldiers killed in this war of more than four and one half years' duration than there were people killed on our highways in any MONTH of the 1960s when we were used to domestic highway casualties of 50,000 per year or 12K+ per month.
And tell that to the families of the soldiers who have died, I am sure they will take great solace in the fact that U.S. losses are quite low in comparsion to deaths on the highway.
Why not add in deaths by cancer and heart diease as well?
Perhaps most hilariously of all, you want to describe the paleowhatevers as noble populists fighting the elitist regulars. James Baker is no paleo but he is no warrior. He is the very essence of elitist. So few people of any social description would be caught dead accepting the idjit paleodelusions that the paleowhatevers will have a hard time selling themselves as "populists." Interventionists = populists. Globaloneyists or INTERNATIONALISTS = Elitists. Paleowhatevers = a small slice of mental patients dedicated to national extinction through paleopeacecreepism and general inaction. The rest of the peacecreeps = frank leftists bright enough to have a clue as to the nature of their foreign policy and their hatred of the USA.
James Baker is a neocon!
And that is who is controlling U.S. foreign policy.
The Old Right conservatives want to take back our foreign policy and fight for U.S. interests, not global ones.
So much of what you rant and rave about is really anti-neocon and pro-Old Right.
You are just too busy blowing hot air to notice.
Reagan Democrats vote as they please without regard to party. When the GOP has the spine to nominate a nominee with manhood who will reject the elitism of the country club, the polo club, the yacht club, the board room, the obsessive materialism and who will fight our nation's enemies to their death whenever US interests are at stake and will thumb his nose at the UN. They think of the GOP as the party of their boss but will support it when it is aggressive in cracking down on crime, terror, babykilling and social perversions. When the GOP is despised by members of the general public, it is over economic issues and fiscal elitism. Under Slick Willie, the Demonrats wanted to get a piece of the "fiscal conservatives" while insisting that they were helping the poor.
So stop nominating RINO Republicans.
American troops should NEVER be deployed under the UN commanders or as part of a UN force. The US should get out of the UN and kick it out of the US. (Even the Birchers are right twice a day).
Well that is a Paleo (Old Right) Ron Paul view!
Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were Democrats. I had not realized that they were reds as you claim in saying that the Democrats always were reds. I doubt that Ann Coulter believes that either. In fact, I warrant that the Democrats were the conservative party in American politics until FDR although there were many good Republicans as well.
Well, since Communism didn't exist, as such, when they were around, I guess they can't be considered communists.
We were talking in context of the 20th century.
If you don't like my writing style, you are not the first and won't be the last. Ask me if I care. I am not writing to curry favor with you. You write your way and I shall write my way. At least I don't shame myself by adopting paleowhateverism in whatever writing style.
And I will regard that paragraph as yet another goofy rant.
Cutting and running (or fleeing in terror in the face of the enemy) are descriptions of "ending a conflict" without the unconditional surrender of our enemies. You say that Nixon kept us in VietNam 4 years longer than necessary and he could have gotten the same "terms" (American surrender at the expense of our Vietnamese allies) when he first took office. Surrender is always reasonably easy compared to victory but victory was what is always necessary. Of course, you believe that there are "limits to American power." Logically, that would seem to be true but those "limits" are and were a LOT further from us than you imagine then and now. General Giap, in his memoirs, conceded that we had beaten him and the NVA by the time of the Tet Offensive but that the reds wondered in amazement at the gullible American public swallowing the propaganda of the leftist MSM. Ronaldus Maximus observed in 1968 that it would take six months and no more to not only defeat North Vietnam but to turn it into the world's largest parking lot with stripes. He also turned out to be an infinitely better president than the likes of Eisenhower or Nixon, much less Ford. It is regrettable but true (and necessary) that soldiers are killed in wars. Each is precious as is such sacrifice but surrender to the evil being fought is an ultimate evil and an absolute dishonor to each dead and wounded American soldier. Something that paleos and other peacecreeps never quite grasp.
Nixon got the same terms four years later that he could have gotten when first elected, so more U.S. troops died for nothing.
We need and we shall have as many nuclear boomers and attack subs as we need or might ever employ in worst case scenarios. If Teheran misbehaves significantly, we might want to consider a practical demonstration of what one boomer could do to eliminate the problem of Islamofascism. If Saudi Arabia ever became a very severe problem, the names of Mecca and Medina come to mind.
LOL!
It will not be done by any neocon!
"Minding our own business" is paleoweaselspeak for downsizing our nation, turning it into an amoral five and dime, ignoring the rise of our enemies while they fatten themselves on lesser prey until they can challenge us and rendering it unwilling to act when action is morally called for. Sean Penn, Nancy Facelift, Dingy Harry, Ted the Swimmer, UpChuck Hagel, Weepy Walter Jones and the paleopipsqueak are NOT conservatives. They advocate cowardice as national policy as did John Sherman Cooper, Charles Mathias, Pete McCloskey and a handful of other treasonous weasels in the GOP during the Vietnam War.
No, minding our own business is just that, allowing each region to handle its own problems, just as we handle ours.
We cannot police the world.
I got a bellyful of peacecreeps and other traitors during the Vietnam War and I am not about to make believe that today's paleopeacecreeps have anything to do with patriotism much less with conservatism when they seek (like paleoPaulie) to ally themselves with America's enemies in times of shooting war.
And it should be the neocons that you are complaining about since they controlled policy during the Vietnam war (no victory) and are controlling it now (no victory).
I believe that if U.S. troops are fighting they should be given the chance to actually win, not fight to create a NWO and put on trial for war crimes whenever they kill the enemy.
And if we aren't going to fight for US interests then we ought to get them out of harms way and let someone else fight for the NWO.