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.
I know what I believe and why I believe what I believe and what I believe long predates the relatively recent invention of paleo"conservative" by disappointed cowards and social eccentrics who figured out in 1986 that they were socially and intellectually unacceptable in actually conservative circles. Then after "neo-con" had long been used as a thinly veiled anti-Semitic slur against some (Irving Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, Alexander Bickel, Sidney Hook, Eugene and Walt Whitman Rostow and a handful of others who remained domestically liberal but were of Lyndon Johnson's circle who were fleeing the Democrat Party when the reds around McGovern were seizing it), the Nation and the New Republic redirected the term to be used against actual conservatives and on behalf of the eccentric little tribe of paleo"conservatives" whining in rage over their discovery that no one but conservatism's enemies ever considered racism or anti-semitism or cowardly isolationism or knee-jerk hatred of the military or that borders and "blood and soil" nostrums or Holocaust denial or resentment of Israel could ever be considered hallmarks of actual conservatism. The heresy was that conservatism could be redefined by its leftist enemies to include a bunch of social eccentrics with whom no one respectable wanted to associate politically.
I was active in the New Right and I bet you were not. We did not wallow in the works of Garrett Garrett or other superannuated eccentrics. We were committed to von Mises and von Hayek, to James Burnham and Frank Meyer, to John Chamberlain not Neville Chamberlain, to Bill Buckley. We understood that the Young People's Socialist League was wrong to be socialist but they were dependable allies in opposition to communism. The paleoeccentrics thought communism was someone else's problem and no big deal (unless maybe what they viewed as "communist" labor unions might cut the profits of their trust funds by forcing wage increases, benefits fair labor practices) compared to the ready and convenient availability of a case of port wine and some whiny post-World War I poetry (often by the lavender set ohhhh soooo heart-broken by what THEY saw as the lost social opportuniteies lying dead on Flanders Field and other battlegrounds) readings (sniffle, sniffle). It just wasn't FAIR the way those foreigners and papists and Hebrews and wogs were using collective bargaining and, not only that but the government was siding with THEM!!!!
I could go on, but Reagan was the worst nightmare of the paleos. His administration was the ultimate slap in their face. He refused to credential most of them. They were blockheaded enough to imagine otherwise until very late in his administration. They exploded in rage at some 1986 conference (Mont Pelerin Society? Philadelphia Society?) when they finally admitted to themselves that they were nobodies and that politically they were nowhere. I am no devotee of David Frum but he did a very nice article on this in National Review in April of about 2004 and he pinned the tail on the Tasmanian Devils of the so-called paleos.
As to Iran, when you start giving reflexive support to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, you may become a distant presence in the room. Where we want, and why we want and "we" does not include peacecreeps "paleo" or otherwise. If you want to support treasonous weasels like paleoPaulie in time of war, then you forfeit any place you might have had at the table. Ask UpChuck Hagel.
Conservatives are NOT people who whimper about the supposed impropriety of revealing their religious commitments in public. If Ben Franklin was not bashful about such things (and he was not exactly religious Right), why should we be bashful? Certainly not because the academy is overrepresented in paleo circles and the paleos don't want to upset their faculty colleagues! You don't have to be bashful on religion to be a paleo. If Tom Fleming and the Rockford Institute folks can be quite publicly religious (generally Catholic) so can you.
No one cares what you or any other "paleo" calls Dubya any more than we care what members of obscure cults on the left may call him. He means well, does reasonably well, could certainly improve but he needs make no apologies to Al Qaeda cheerleaders and anti-military antiAmerican nincompoops like paleoPaulie.
Those who do not whine, moan and groan like regular John Kerrys against Dubya, I would call "American patriots" those who understand that there is one POTUS at a time and, when he is a conservative POTUS, we back him and his policies. Dubya is a conservative POTUS.
The "peace at any price" crowd have no voice in any discussion of the war dead whom they undermined in life. Each dead soldier is an individual tragedy and a loss to friends, family and comrades at arms and to our nation as well. Each is one in a long grey, blue and khaki line of honor, an honor that "paleos" will never begin to appreciate or understand. Fewer than 4,000 deaths from all causes in a war lasting nearly five years and counting is an accomplishment whether you think so or not. All those IEDs and still fewer than 4,000 dead.
Isolationist is what the paleos are whether they like the name or not. As a respectable political cause (if it ever was) isolationism died on 12/7/41 and again on 9/11/01. It will not be allowed to rise again. The old diployak world died on the eve of WWI as the pampered privileged Eurodiployakkers sniffled in their perfumed beards in the full realization that their world was at an end.
Globalism, the natural born partner of the pacifist crowd made an effort at arms limitations in the 1920's and we saw how very practical THAT was along with that knee-slapping League of Nations and after WWII was over FDR took Alger Hiss in tow for another go at "peace in our time" this time in faux alliance with the soviets with whom Ike always sided lest there be, well, violence!!!!
So we find ourselves in our time mired in the UN. Dubya is not perfect but he certainly is a major improvement over his old man by calling our corrupt pacifist and unprincipled former European partners what they are: Old Europe and by letting the UN know that we are not putting our national manhood in trust to the socialist, communist, Islamofascist or generally barbarian UN diplodopes and would be world masters. He doesn't much care for their global warming treaty either. Well, there is progress and the future will give more progress toward nationalism and freedom until we dispose of the United Nations and abrogate the treaties it has spawned. "Paleos" won't be part of that because they are nobodies and no one cares what they think or want. Interventionism is the only solution to globaloney and to isolationism as well.
BTW, since you apparently think that we should "mind our own business," was Auschwitz our business? Treblinka? Bergen-Belsen? Wrangell Island? The Hanoi Hilton? The Iron Curtain? The Berlin Wall? Is genocide OK so long as it does not take place in Centralia, Kansas? If Ahmanutjob wants to nuke Israel, is that any of our business? When Islamolunatics blow up busloads of innocent Orthodox Jewish grammar school children, do we pose for holy pictures and say "tut, tut, bad Arab!", or just shut up or DO something about it?
What on earth does border immigration and "amnesty" bills have to do with the shameful paleo devotion to peacecreepism???? I must say that such obsessions certainly did lots of good for inhabitants of Central Europe in the 1930s when our domestic bunds, see no evil peacecreeps, nazis and reds as well (until Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland and the reds went pro-war, were trying to "keep us out of war."
If we are going to do Iran (I actually suspect that the Israelis want that one), let it be the boomers and not the pilots.
Let's translate: You praise Ike for being a feckless do nothing who wasted eight years in office characterized primarily by joining the reds in undermining Joe McCarthy and other similar Senators, avoiding wars at all costs regardless of the results of same, attacking our "military industrial complex", the lifeline of the nation. Good thing Ike never had anything to do with the military part! Oh, wait....! He did play a mean golf game. My factory worker father always asked why it was that every time Ike wiped Ike's backside we had to endure news coverage of the event.
What you call "empty rhetoric" is unvarnished truth but you should not have to be told that.
Of course, Ron Paul isn't president. We still have a country which is definitive proof that the feckless little wimp is not POTUS. Ron Paul and what you mistakenly call "The Old Right" which is actually the neo-surrender movement not only oppose the deployment of US troops under the UN, but also are downright horrified at the thought of deploying US troops under the US or of the idea that there should even be US troops at all, if we just sat around the camp fire, singing Kumbaya with Muhammed el Kaboomski and selling him whatever he might want to shove Sharia "Law" down our throats, the lions would surely lie down with the lambs (in their bellies in the form of lamb stew), right? If only we could see "peace" through paleoPaulie's blinders!!!!
I guess you mean that, in the context of the 20th century such Democrats as Al Smith and Cox and Davis and James Eastland and John Stennis and Spessard Holland and George Wallace and John McClellan and Edwin Hebert and Mendel Rivers and James Michael Curley and Jimmy Walker and Richard Daley the Elder and Paul Douglas and Hubert Humphrey and Scoop Jackson and Tom Dodd and George Meany and William Green and.... must have all been communists since they were Democrats. I had never imagined that and neither, in all likelihood, had they.
What I "rant and rave" is conservatism, not the paleopacifist crapola that you call "the Old Right" and not the lunacy of Dr. Demento. Let the dead bury the dead. Your ideology died an inglorious and well-deserved death a verrrrrry long time ago and it has not been missed since.
If Nixon and even Dubya have not gone as far as they should, let us determine to ever harden the American military interventionism and do better in the future via the slaughter of our enemies and not by running home to hide 'neath Nana's skirts until the baaaaad men go away! The greatest dishonesty of your arguments lies in the suggestion that paleos EVER favor American victory when they want to hide in the basement.
“Really?
I haven’t seen one yet!”
That’s because you support the cut and run coward.
“So, why haven’t we hit Iran for killing U.S. troops?”
Who says that something isn’t already in the works?
Besides why the hell would you care? Your heerow el run paul has said that Iran is not a threat, that they have no military, That everything being said about them is false, and that he wouldn’t attack them.
“I call them hypocrites.”
Yet you think that “Do as I say, not as I do” paul is a truthful and honorable man.
Speaks volumes about the ingrained hypocrisy of your views.
“More empty rhetoric.”
We expect nothing less from the paul campaign
“I do not see any U.S. Bombers flying over Iran?”
That’s because they’re STEALTH bombers.....You know, the very same bombers that your heerow voted to kill.
“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.”
Oh so now the America hating terrorist supporting freak show known as the ron paul pollution is trying to claim the mantle of the “Old Right”?
“So stop nominating RINO Republicans.”
Oh, so we can nominate the RINO that you support?
“It will not be done by any neocon!”
“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).”
Oh no! The big bad neocon boogyman!
You paul supporters sound just like the communists that populate the DUmp or dailykos with your shrill cries about neocons.
But then again everyone who refuses the ron paullution is a neocon in your book.
“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.”
None of our troops have been put on trial for “war crimes”.
They have been put on trial for abusing prisoners.
They have been put on trial for killing prisoners.
They have been put on trial for murdering innocent civilians.
ALL of which is in accordance with the UCMJ (UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE) which is the Congressional Code of Military Criminal Law applicable to all military members worldwide.