Unpatriotic Conservatives: A war against America.

National Review ^ | April 7, 2003 | David Frum

[Destro]

I did not say I was against this war did I? But the paleo-cons make great points that will benefit our Republic if listened too--if only to sharpen our understandings of the need for this war.

If one has seen my posts you will see I am not a peacenik by any means but I will drink a taost with Raimondo rather than Frum any day.

[KDD]

Agreed...they are spot on about lack of Border Security in this country. But National Security concerns transend our borders. It would be dangerous in the modern world for us to be isolationists. I read Raimondo when he posts an article here.

Some of it I agree with.

But he seems to side more with Arab Islam than Israel in his writing. I part company with him there...we perceive different enemies beyond our borders.

[Destro]

The problem with the neo-cons is that they approach national security as "ideology security". What I mean by that is they base their security concerns not on what is best for America but what is best for their vision. Paleo-conservatives do tend to like their nation's borders and not go forth from them.

[KDD]

Fulani may have been a disaster for Buchanan, but the temporary allaince showed me that the movement tended toward the extreme, which is where dogma often leads. In the case of Fulani and Buchanan, it was the fringe right meeting the fringe left at the extreme of the political spectrum. An invitation to anarchy if ever there was one.

I'm not ready for that.

Yet.

Paleo-conservatives do tend to like their nation's borders and not go forth from them.

They need to look out over their ramparts once in a while...nature abhors a vaccum.

If we don't fill it on the international scene someone else will.

China perhaps?

[Destro]

See that is the problem--how should we fill in the seam?

Where do I fall in--Well I loved NATO-really loved the concept-of a mutual defensive organization--but only that.

When the neo-cons and the neo-liberals (the so called third way) began to change NATO into an offensive alliance allowing it to go and do what it did to Yugoslavia then I I see where the line in the sand is. That role for NATO--its mutation was evil and disgusting to me.

Neo-liberals want to US via NATO to be their multilateral police force/army enforcing the third way agenda-remember Clinton's Strobe Talbot saying borders no longer matter?

Neo-cons want the exact same thing but instead of having the UN or some multilateralist organization as hegemon the neo-cons envision the USA alone in the hegemons throne.

Neo-cons and Neo-libearls are opposite sides of the same coin.

If NATO was left alone--not used to do pet "humanitarian war" projects--if America only created defensive alliances, deterence as a policy, MAD, etc then whatever that is called--that is what I am.