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 didnt, 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
As I suggested to rudeboy, we destroyed our economy. So all we needed to do to win in Vietnam is take out a few more villages? Or perhaps install a better dictator? Your vision of the world is unremarkably narrow. You are a military utopian who does not understand the complexities and risks of war. Furthermore you do not understand that choosing your wars carefully to result in economic benefit is the best course when forced into war. Thus with the "plan" described by TailgunnerJoe, we will "destroy" Putin while the Chinese destroy us. Do you agree with Tailgunner Joe?