[KDD]

Fulani may have been a disaster for Buchanan, but the temporary allaince showed me that the movement tended toward the extreme, which is where dogma often leads. In the case of Fulani and Buchanan, it was the fringe right meeting the fringe left at the extreme of the political spectrum. An invitation to anarchy if ever there was one.

I'm not ready for that.

Yet.

Paleo-conservatives do tend to like their nation's borders and not go forth from them.

They need to look out over their ramparts once in a while...nature abhors a vaccum.

If we don't fill it on the international scene someone else will.

China perhaps?

[Destro]

See that is the problem--how should we fill in the seam?

Where do I fall in--Well I loved NATO-really loved the concept-of a mutual defensive organization--but only that.

When the neo-cons and the neo-liberals (the so called third way) began to change NATO into an offensive alliance allowing it to go and do what it did to Yugoslavia then I I see where the line in the sand is. That role for NATO--its mutation was evil and disgusting to me.

Neo-liberals want to US via NATO to be their multilateral police force/army enforcing the third way agenda-remember Clinton's Strobe Talbot saying borders no longer matter?

Neo-cons want the exact same thing but instead of having the UN or some multilateralist organization as hegemon the neo-cons envision the USA alone in the hegemons throne.

Neo-cons and Neo-libearls are opposite sides of the same coin.

If NATO was left alone--not used to do pet "humanitarian war" projects--if America only created defensive alliances, deterence as a policy, MAD, etc then whatever that is called--that is what I am.