Replies

If the message seems muddled other than the last paragraph's editing omissions, go to your community college for remedial reading and try to get permission to use conservative texts to kill two educational birds with one stone.

1. You parrot the Iraqi line. Hence: Baghdad Bob.

2. Pay close attention. I am only going to repeat this for you this last time lest you get the idea that neo-Neville Chamberlainism is EVER going to be acceptable again as any kind of "conservatism." NEOCONSERVATIVES: A relatively small group of very old and usually Jewish ex-liberals and ex-leftists who do not fully accept economic conservatism but have made distinguished contributions to conservatism as prebviously posted. See Irving Kristol's Two Cheers for Capitalism. CONSERVATIVES: The conservative movement post 12/7/41 which believes and believed in an aggressive, interventionist foreign and military policy to advance American interests, social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, guns, lowest taxes, low public spending other than military. See Ronald Reagan.

"PALEOs": not conservatives, unemployable social eccentrics angry at Reagan for not hiring them, "constitutionalist" poseurs, people who consort with the likes of Raimondo.

You complain that calling the "paleocons" isolationists is dishonest???????? Your ranting that assumes that actual conservatives have any use for the CIA sounds like a delusion of the International ANSWER crowd. We all thought that Castro got his job via the incompetence of the Ivy League liberal weenies running the CIA and kept his job via the same.

America IS a good nation on balance whther the habitual malcontents like to think so or not.

Ranting about US corporations and oil or the evil CIA does not suggest your conservatism.

Internationalism is another diplo-weenie scheme to tie the US down an restrict its freedom of intervention. In the last analysis, the air power, naval power and infantry power o the US accomplishes far more than a lot more useless diplomatic yak-yak.

Do not assume that I accept your misuse of terms, either.

The term Paleo-Con, as used here on FR is ill defined. Many people will call anyone who wants immigration dramatically reduced and anyone who wants FAIR trade, with use of import duities if need be, and anyone who wants to stop job outsourcing is called a paleo-conservative. Most Freepers including myself who are put in the Paleo-Con group share little of the foreign policy(outside of economics) views of the likes of Lew Rockwell, and realise that isolationism is not a viable option, nor has been since Pearl Harbor.

One thing that many so called conservative smay have a problem with people they view as paleo-cons is that "paleos" tend to not view themselves as Americans first, but as part of somthing bigger, namely Western Civilisation, and defense of the Westeren Culture, and will not be silent when they think the US is doing the wrong thing. "My country right or wrong" is not what they believe in.

>BE: go to your community college for remedial reading and try to get permission to use conservative texts to kill two educational birds with one stone.

Sarcasm and condescension are not conducive to civil debate.

>BE: You parrot the Iraqi line. Hence: Baghdad Bob.

I had hoped for a more substantive answer. You know the facts about the Gulf War so what is your answer to the question "how do you define our actions?" If you don't think we cynically manipulated a regional dispute for our corporate interests and empire what do you think it was all about?

>BE: neo-Neville Chamberlainism is EVER going to be acceptable again as any kind of "conservatism."

So peaceful trade with all nations and not seeking monsters to destroy is now Chamberlainism is it? I reject your characterization as wrong and malicious but I guarantee that after several foreign policy failures that are costly in blood and treasure intervention for corporate benefits under the guise of do-gooderism and democracy will not be so palatable to any kind of conservatism.

>BE: Your ranting that assumes that actual conservatives have any use for the CIA

Bill Buckly was in the CIA as were a number of early NR members. What do you make of this little tidbit?-
"In 1952, a young "conservative" serving a one-year tour of duty with the CIA wrote an article for The Commonweal, a Catholic weekly. This man wrote:
"… we have got to accept Big Government for the duration — for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged, given our present government skills, except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores....
"And if they deem Soviet power a menace to our freedom (as I happen to), they will have to support large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards, and the attendant centralization of power in Washington — even with Truman at the reins of it all.
"That was 1952, and the writer of this article was calling for "Big Government for the duration" and "the attendant centralization of power in Washington" in order to oppose Communism. He wanted to fight Communism by adopting Marxism....Who do you suppose wrote those words? It was none other than William F. Buckley Jr."

Buckly and NR came as a wolf in sheep's clothing. It fractured and purged the right and reshaped the remainder to accept the establishment i.e. liberal world view of intervention, global wealth transfers, continuous war and domestic socialism all under the guise of national defense.

>BE:Ranting about US corporations and oil or the evil CIA does not suggest your conservatism.

I base my policy critiques on my core beliefs in maximum personal liberty, limited and localized government, the constitution - particularly that quaint little bit "to...establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity."
Does engaging in non-essential military action secure the liberty of military personnel or the nation as a whole? Losing one's life frivolously is not having your liberty secured now is it? To have one's life lost or body maimed or income confiscated purely for private businesses profits, for personal grandeur of a particular politician, to get votes in the next election or to get Moncia off the front page is a sin of the highest order and betrays the original purpose for the government.
Eisenhower warned us against the military-industiral complex (the speech originally included congress in the equation but that bit was dropped because informing the people that their representatives were tools of big business was too impolitic). Funny how Ike served that complex all his life but upon retirement saw fit to issue a warning. Seems he knew something. Like the less eloquent USMC General Smedly Butler who after retiring declared "war is a racket." He said he did not defend the US once in his career, he killed people to advance the interests of Wall Street.

>BE: Internationalism is another diplo-weenie scheme to tie the US down an restrict its freedom of intervention.

The difference between the "dipo-weenie" crowd and the "US free to intervene crowd" is like sects of Christians who disagree over baptism - should it be done as an infant or an adult - they are both Christians, they just differ on details. Likewise the intervention crowd both believe in intervention they simply disagree on who is top dog in the global government scenario.

>BE: In the last analysis, the air power, naval power and infantry power o the US accomplishes far more than a lot more useless diplomatic yak-yak.

Sounds like old fashioned gunboat diplomacy. Churchill, no paragon of virtue himself, did at least say "jaw, jaw is better than war, war." Your advice sounds like the callous and murderous "kill 'em all. Let God sort them out" mentality. Whoever does not agree with you is to be subjugated by force of arms? Real nice outlook on life, that.