Skip to comments.Republicans must get real on foreign policy
Posted on 12/13/2012 7:46:55 PM PST by WilliamIII
Republicans are slowly recovering from their crushing defeat in the presidential election, and are now weighing possible changes that the party clearly needs to make to regain the public's trust after losing their third national election in the last six years. (2010 was the lone bright spot.) But despite the broad soul-searching, most of the GOP's high-profile national leaders have so far failed to address the party's continued weakness on foreign policy and national security, which remains a major liability. The exceptions to this have been Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who have both hinted at a reformed Republican foreign policy that is less aggressive and less reliant on military action.
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
That was all of this maggot's puke that I could take.
I’m a Reaganite, I guess an old-fashioned conservative. Reagan didn’t start any wars. Today, some people think that, to be a Republican, you have to support new wars. Was Reagan weak, an appeasor? Tell that to the Soviets.
6% difference is ‘crushing’?
Spare me, the fraud alone could account for most of that.
Reagan's genius was that he could spend efficiently. While he rebuilt the military that the Rats had bled for the "Great Society" vote buying, he actually spent less than the Rats on defense (he cut more pork and built solid muscle).
When Reagan decided he could accomplish a major contribution to the world, he unfought the Soviet Union by proposing an anti missile system an antiweapon, if you will.
When the Communists objected, he offered to GIVE them the same system so both sides could unfight (the USSR would still have to build the hardware, the technology was the gift).
Finally, when the showdown with the balky Commies came, Reagan selected his secret weapon, one that doesn't kill, but just completely convinces. That weapon was the US economy. Who knew?
Well, Reagan did, he was a true warrior, and knew his craft, not afraid of blood (Granada), but not reckless.
My kind of guy.
It MUST be true, as it was yesterday’s headline on the Frisian Daily News!
Right now the US needs an Eisenhower. Keep gov and military adventures to a minimum and pay down the debt. Eisenhower basically did that as the US got out of Korea and paid down their WW2 war debts. He got rid of the illegal immigrants and made more jobs available to US citizens, and only major infrastructure program was the interstate highways which employed lots of blue collar workers. These roads provided the US with strategic roadways for war, and in peacetime increased the geographical mobility of Americans and the US economy. He did not let US allies use us, and leery of corporate America in the DoD.
Eisenhower was, in fact, a great President, and accomplished much by NOT having the government do certain things.
He was so popular, it was hard and risky for the well established Marxist left and their MSM sycophants (yes, even in the 50's) to denigrate and demonize him. So the mocked him for doing nothing.
But Eisenhower was no obtuse placeholder, and the Interstate Highway System was actually a huge victory for conservatives and patriots over the American left, while the Federal government remained within the bounds of the Constitution.
Ike whacked a large group of Marxist American traitors with the Interstate, permanently. It's a great story.
On the contrary, Reagan subscribed to the principle that if you want peace, prepare for war, and that there are thing that a free man is willing to fight for.
I agree, that’s why I’m a Reaganite. He kept the peace by preparing for war. In contrast, Bush started a war that we didn’t need to engage in, and it destroyed his presidency - and left us with an Iraq that’s run by Shiites who are the closest allies to Iran.
As National Rifle Association President David Keene has noted:
Reagan resorted to military force far less often than many of those who came before him or who have since occupied the Oval Office. . . . After the  assault on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, it was questioning the wisdom of U.S. involvement that led Reagan to withdraw our troops rather than dig in. He found no good strategic reason to give our regional enemies inviting U.S. targets. Can one imagine one of todays neoconservative absolutists backing away from any fight anywhere?
Although the Soviets knew they could not compete with SDI, that had almost nothing to do with what caused their economy to collapse. That was accomplished by falling oil prices subsequent to Reagan's decontrol of American oil production. Without the petrodollar cash flow to support their massive military, the cost of maintaining equipment, particularly for their naval forces, is what really took them down.
The GOP needs to stay far away from Jon Huntsman’s Liberal Free Trade Communist Globalist agenda.
In fact, this writer fails to mention that too many GOP are pretty close to Huntsman’s foreign policy positions
Rand Paul’s foreign policy views are a little more palatable, but, as long as one supports Free Trade, you support Liberal Globalism....and you support failure. Free Trade Communist Globalism is not going to work in this 21st Century, and its failures are already quite apparent
I agree with that in retrospect of the nation building, democracy crap. I am interested in controlling nuclear WMD's.
Reagan resorted to military force far less often than many of those who came before him or who have since occupied the Oval Office. . ."
Absolutely true, and a sign of a great warrior, defeat your enemy by not fighting him.
I guess we agree on Reagan. The man was able to avoid so much damage and disaster and still get things done for the betterment of so many people.
Right, however the subject nobody says anything about (but which is actually more important than any other) is our massive trade deficit.
We must bring back US manufacturing.
Not soon. Now.
No, not satire, Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense.
True, but three points:
The oil production freed (from control by Communist Environmental Rats), was still an important part of the US economy, so the US economy was the weapon used.
SDI was a proposal based in peace and security proven by the offer to share the technology. It laid a foundation for trust, and Reagan was trustworthy.
The Soviet Union actually could afford SDI, IF they seriously cut their massive and wasteful offensive military programs. The Soviets reluctantly saw the light, and Reagan's ideas prevailed.
Not soon. Now.
That would be great, but it would require immediately changing numerous conditions (and not considering the lag time that start ups or relocations always require), in the US that conservatives, free capitalists, Republicans and the ordinary Joe have very little or no control over whatsoever.
I'll give ya just one to accomplish to get me on board:
Defund the EPA, just defund it, and ya got me.
All true. But Ike was also an idiot who horribly ednangered us. He screwed our allies Britain and France to help the Soviet ally, Egypt. This told the third world to go Soviet. He also supported a lunatic policy, “Atoms for Peace”, where we pushed nuclear power around the world. Nothing like promoting nuclear proliferation for peace.
Ike was also an idiot who horribly ednangered us.
The Ike years were Republican years of peace and prosperity.
Ike told the British and French to pound sand because great powers do not let small allies drag them into wars without being consulted. The British, French and Israel planned a secret attack to retake the Suez Canal. The US was not told, but after the attack, and then these “allies” thought they can force the US to get involve. Ike decision is right, he did not want the allies in Europe who still think they are in charge of the world to use the US as the muscle back up in wars they want. That is how WW1 got started. I agree with you on the atomic for peace insanity. Great powers never share their secrets of power.
I am interested in controlling nuclear WMD’s.
Me too. Iraq didn’t have em, it turned out, so the war was a massive waste - worse than a waste because it elevated the Shiites to power in Iraq.
What Larison believes in is appeasement.
So “appeasement” means somebody who supports deterrence and containment? Reagan was an appeaser in your definition.
Reagan believed in rollback, not merely containment. In 1980, the Soviets had nukes, so preventing them from getting them was hardly an option. But let us note that The American Dhimmi oppose all actual efforts at ballistic missile defense, while pretending to support in theory. That is unless publishing a leftist surrenderist, which they often do, because their evening star is dhimmitude, not conservatism.
Land, peace bread.
Reagan believed in rollback, not merely containment.
Yes, but Reagan knew rollback could happen - he made it happen - without getting the US into wars. Unlike Bush Jr., who I voted for twice, but who turned out to be a failed president who ushered in the rule of Obama, in large part because of Bush’s disastrous decision to invade Iraq. There are statues to Reagan in the countries he liberated without getting the US into any wars. Are there any statues to Bush in Iraq? Have the Shiites who now run that country named any streets after Bush?
But wars were necessary. We supported Afghan Mujehadeen in a proxy war. We liberated Grenad in an absolute case of rollback. And the Liberation of Kuwait under George HW Bush crippled the reputation of Soviet equipment and doctrine.