Replies

But wait a second. For whatever reason (I don't know how that label evolved) the people who advocate the policy of aggressive military action with the goal of instituting Pax Americana are called neocons. If you disgree with that policy, and name it's implementers and adherents, you shouldn't be called a racist just because some of them are Jewish. I see this as neocons playing the 'race' card to chill dissent, and that bothers me as much as if anyone else was doing it.

I'm old enough to have heard the phrases "chill dissent" and "pax Americana" though five decades. And they have just about always been phrases of the left. Gunslingr3 sounds like he is a foreign policy leftist. That's not an insult, and I'll also mention that Gunslingr3 may also be a good conservative on domestic policy. However, I would just point out that favoring a strong and assertive America has been solid conservativism in the US since before Goldwater, and certainly since then.

Gunslingr3 sounds like he is a foreign policy leftist.

Read George Washington's Farewell Address. Read John Quincy Adams' 'Monsters to Destroy' speech. They encapsulate my foreign policy views. If that's 'leftist', well, whatever...

You may think it a good idea. However, I stick with the OTHER George on this one: Trade with one and all; avoid entangling alliances with any. The only "assertive" we need is to assert our right (as individuals) to conduct trade, freely and honestly, with anyone who is equally free and honest a trader. We need no more than that. Pax Americana? No way. We are not and cannot AFFORD, in ANY WAY, to be policeman to the world. It ONLY brings us grief. Yet, "neocons" of whatever ethnicity seem to feel that we have some vaguely defined national "right" to exert our will on anyone we please. Not MY America. Not the one the Founders handed us. We are yet and still a REPUBLIC, not an EMPIRE. Why should we change that?