Posted on 02/28/2006 8:46:11 PM PST by jb6
Edited on 02/28/2006 11:09:58 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
If that were the only issue on which their objectives "converged," you might have a point. The problem is that the objectives of the neo-cons also converged with the Bush administration on just about every other hot-button issue that p!sses off real conservatives, too (open borders, massive increases in government spending, etc.).
Ehh??? When was this. S.Korea was in "anarchy" because it was invaded by N.Korea.
I think Paddy Buchanan is calling you. Maybe he will let
you come out and play some other time.
Wow, thanks for that well thought out addition to this thread. Very appreciated.
You're thinking Vietnam. They didn't throw out the government, they assassinated the corrupt president, whom we'd sworn to protect. Though he was corrupt, we gave our word and didn't protect him. Because of that, no other local leader trusted us. Big mistake.
Can't help but agree with that. FDR was a total chickenhawk, and look at all the damage that he did...
That is a tenditious comment, overgeneralized, and thus errant. If anything, neocons tend to be concerned about feckless spending, and saddling the next generation with feckless debt. They are not in love with the greedy geezers. Yes that is a generalization too, but more accurate than yours. What is a fair comment, is that Neocons are not isolationist, or protectionist, and wish the lone superpower while it can, to try to fashion the planet into a better place, to the extent practicable and prudent.
The sentiment I agree with jb6 on is that there is a price in the blood of your nation's finest that we cannot allow to be undervalued.
That's dead on. With one caveat, liberalism is inherently evil and destroys lives (use Detroit as current proof if you need it) and there is not a lot of proof that variants of conservatism will categorically and methodically with a proven predictability destroy a society like clockwork as does leftist action.
Reagan granted Amnesty to millions of illegals and darn near tripled spending. Reagan changed the world for the better, yet by your "REAL CONSERVATIVE" standards, Reagan was a NeoCon... What you are is a pessimist and a isolationist, much like the ultimate right wing pessimist and isolationist, Patrick J. Buchanan
You have no chance to survive. Make your time.
After World War II the country spent 40+ years under totalitarian communist rule -- a historical development that had the full approval of the United States.
Spreading of democracy has brought the Muslim Brotherhood almost into power in Egypt, Hamas in Palistine, islamics in Afghanistan & Pakistan & Iraq. Representative Republics are not fit for all, its not one shoe fits all. We've set ourselves up for a whole new generation of wars. Not like that's anything new.
So in Iraq the neo-cons have succeded in having Islamist nut bags elect Islamist nut bags who want to kill non
islamists Big Victory. Pakistan; lots of Islamist nut bags waiting for a chance to off Mushariff and then use their nukes on Israel and India. Hamas is elected to officaldom
Spreading democracy is working real good.
So I take it you can't argue the issue? Fine, name calling and false patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.
I put 12 years into defending this nation. What was your contribution?
Problem is, neoconservatism is a child of leftist liberalism.
As I mentioned on an earlier post, this is a Paddy Buchanan
disciple. Also NeoCon being the code word for Jew
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.