You were doing pretty well with the KGB's destruction of America. No doubt there was more to it than I have read about. However you are falsely equating interventionism and republican free market capitalism (the opposite of liberal socialism). Interventionism clearly undermines free market capitalism. The reason is that economic strength leads to military strength. We can have economic strength and isolationism. Or we can have interventionism which is pot luck. Sometimes it works out such as WWII when we were victorious and benefitted economically. Sometimes it does not like in pissant countries like Vietnam where we were supposed to stop the communist tide. Did that adventure weaken communism in any way? If the politicians had let the military planners run Vietnam do you think we would have won? If your answer to the latter is yes, then I cannot help you. You are a military utopian.
Which is another way of saying we can have economic strength without economic liberty.
I recommend "Masters of Deceit" by J. Edgar Hoover, "I led 3 Lives: Citizen, Communist, Counterspy" by Herbert Philbrick, New Lies for Old and Perestroika Deception by Anatoliy Golitsyn (two different books), J.R. Nyquist's Origins of the Fourth World War, Red Cocaine by Joseph Douglas, We Will Bury You by Jan Sejna, Soviet Strategy for Nuclear War by Joseph Douglass again, Red Horizons by Ion Pacepa, and, of course, anything by Trevour Loudon.
There was a reason why Anti-Communists acted like there might be a communist behind every bush. Because, if you actually looked, you'd actually find a Russkie communist there.
However you are falsely equating interventionism and republican free market capitalism (the opposite of liberal socialism).
You are falsely imposing upon me your definition of the word "interventionism." Fighting the Russians doesn't mean nation building in Afghanistan. Fighting the Russians doesn't mean launching the Nukes tomorrow either, to reanswer your nuclear war thing from earlier. Fighting the Russians means preparing for war, and using smart strategy to undermine Russian and Chinese objectives in the world, as well as undermining their country from within. And, of course, being able to fight the Russians in a world war proper if they finally decide to launch it.
This is not a war we want. It is a war that the enemy intends to give us, whether we like it or not. Dismissing the threat of Russian aggression is simply stupidity. There is no reason for it.
If the politicians had let the military planners run Vietnam do you think we would have won?
Yes, of course. And we were even winning in the end, killing them many times over, compared to what they did to us, which was greatly exaggerated by the media due to Communist meddling.
“As our tanks were rolling into the presidential palace [in South Vietnam], if America had conducted just one more air strike we would have thrown in the towel,” Giap admitted. “And thank god they didn’t,” Giap added, “because, let me tell you, that tank was running on fumes.” Read more: http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/10/vietnam-war-winning/#ixzz3C17lnCNI