Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Neoconservatism, not libertarianism, is the true aberration on the American Right
Charleston City Paper ^ | 2010-04-07 | Jack Hunter aka Southern Avenger

Posted on 04/08/2010 9:27:19 AM PDT by rabscuttle385

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-178 next last

1 posted on 04/08/2010 9:27:19 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bamahead; Bokababe; dcwusmc

Of possible interest.


2 posted on 04/08/2010 9:27:36 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Someone define “neoconservative” for me.


3 posted on 04/08/2010 9:28:45 AM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Libertarians arguments all resolve to “I want to smoke dope”


4 posted on 04/08/2010 9:28:52 AM PDT by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
Libertarianism with its wink at child molestation, drug usage, outright sympathy for Islamic terrorism is not an abberation?

Give me a break!

5 posted on 04/08/2010 9:30:40 AM PDT by Stepan12 (Palin & Bolton in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

They won’t do that...the RonPaul nuts can’t incriminate themselves.

1. Jooooos
2. Anybody who believes in a strong defense, peace through strength etc.

It’s all a cabal to them.


6 posted on 04/08/2010 9:31:06 AM PDT by rbmillerjr (Let hot tar wash their throats and may it flow freely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)

A] Did you forget a sarcasm tag?

B] Are you trying to start a fight?

C] Are you just that ignorant of facts and truth?


7 posted on 04/08/2010 9:35:02 AM PDT by Badray (sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

“Neoconservative” is such an over-used term that it has no meaning ...

- Conservatives usually use the term to refer to tax-cut-and-spend Republicans ... in this case I am not a NeoCon.
- Liberals use it to refer to foriegn-policy-hawks and war-on-terror-proponents ... in this case, I am a NeoCon.
- Libertarians and Ron-Paul-cult-members would have you believe the two groups (spenders and hawks) are one-and-the-same ... they’re just wrong.

So who is this schmuck talking about?

SnakeDoc


8 posted on 04/08/2010 9:37:29 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant [...] that even a god-king can bleed.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca
Someone define “neoconservative” for me.

Pro-war statists/liberals. See John McCain and Joe Lieberman and the Weekly Standard.

9 posted on 04/08/2010 9:38:02 AM PDT by NeoCaveman ("workers of the world unite, it's not just a slogan anymore" SEIU's Andy Stern)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

A neoconservative is, by definition, someone who was a liberal, but is now conservative.

Liberal and conservative are just labels. Libertarian is a name that has some actual meaning. A libertarian values the same things regardless of the country they are in. “Conservative” and “liberal” derive their meaning from the context of the country and government in which they exist. A conservative in the current Russia has much different values than a conservative in the US.


10 posted on 04/08/2010 9:42:51 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
- Conservatives usually use the term to refer to tax-cut-and-spend Republicans ... in this case I am not a NeoCon.

Huh??? What the heck is "tax-cut-and spend-Republican?" Are you refering to supply siders? If so, you don't have a case. The neocons were primarily attracted to the GOP in the 1970s and 1980s because of foreign policy (and to a lesser extent because of social and welfare policy) not because of "tax cuts."

11 posted on 04/08/2010 9:43:00 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Stepan12

First, there is a difference between Libertarianism and being libertarian.

Do you paint the entire republican party the same way because of the beliefs and actions of a few?

Are all cops bad because some are? Are all soldiers and Marines bad because some are.

Your argument would work better with a smaller brush. I am a conservative with libertarian leanings. I want child molesters executed. I want warring and supporting factions of islamist wiped from the face of the earth. But I really do not give a damn what someone puts into their body. That’s not my business and their problem is not mine either — in a free society. I should not be forced to pick up for them but neither should my liberty be infringed upon by some worthless, ineffective (but very expensive) phony war on drugs.


12 posted on 04/08/2010 9:43:42 AM PDT by Badray (sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

Those who would drag the US into an endless series of Middle-Eastern wars, against its long-term strategic interests (and continue to try and do so).

“Not seldom has it seemed as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States.”

- Russell Kirk


13 posted on 04/08/2010 9:45:01 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
“Neoconservative” is such an over-used term that it has no meaning ...

Your beef is with the late Norman Podhoritz, among others, who coined and proudly embraced the term throughout his life. Podhoritz was quite clear by what he meant by the term. It included a warmed over Wilsonianism on foreign policy and a sense that the left had "gone too far" by expanding welfare programs.

14 posted on 04/08/2010 9:45:32 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

I apologize for my lack of clarity ... I was referring to individuals like George W. Bush who tax-cut like conservatives and spend like liberals. RINOS.

SnakeDoc


15 posted on 04/08/2010 9:46:59 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant [...] that even a god-king can bleed.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

“against its long-term strategic interests”

Which wars? And what are the long-term strategic interests?


16 posted on 04/08/2010 9:47:20 AM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
From a purely philosophical view, Neoconservativism is what political sciences would call classical Liberalism. Liberalism today is the opposite of classical Liberalism. Libertarianism is one aspect of classical Liberalism. Both emphasis the negative view of liberty or freedom, that is, freedom from government interference. I should be able to do whatever I want as long as it does not violate the freedom of others. Much of Libertarianism today is closer to Anarchism than classical Liberalism. The failure of much of Libertarianism today is that it fails to understand that my private actions not only affect me, but they affect others. It is the same reason that classical Anarchism does not work.
17 posted on 04/08/2010 9:47:43 AM PDT by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)

“Libertarians arguments all resolve to “I want to smoke dope””

the usual slander of so-called conservatives to discredit real conservatives, ie libertarians.

If you are not for smaller, Constitutional, government, you have no right to call yourself a conservative. The war on drugs is only one of a multitude of activities that the government needs to cease and desist to be Constitutional.


18 posted on 04/08/2010 9:48:04 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nosterrex

Thanks for posting that.


19 posted on 04/08/2010 9:52:24 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists...Call 'em What you Will, They ALL have Fairies Living In Their Trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

“Big Government Republicans.”


20 posted on 04/08/2010 9:52:38 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)

Wow... It didn’t take long for that idiotic canard to be tossed out there.


21 posted on 04/08/2010 9:53:59 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

Exactly. If you believe in freedom as a moral concept then then extending that liberty and freedom to others means that sometimes you’re going to have to allow folks to do things you don’t agree with. Allowing them to do it doesn’t mean you support it, it just means you oppose controlling others. At the same time, society owes you the same respect and should not control you. Government intervention and control isn’t okay simply because its intentions are something we agree with... government intervention and control is wrong whenever it extends beyond the purpose of keeping the peace.


22 posted on 04/08/2010 9:54:08 AM PDT by daniel885
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Stepan12

2/3 wrong answers. Epic fail on your part.


23 posted on 04/08/2010 9:54:36 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
I would use the term "neo con" to refer to someone who supports undeclared wars, with undefined enemies, and rules of engagement which guarantee our troops will be pinned down for decades.

Fight a war with everything you've got, for unconditional victory, or don't fight it at all.

24 posted on 04/08/2010 9:54:51 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
It's a pretty simple defining line: do you believe it is a good thing to limit the power of government and emphasize human freedom, or do you believe it is a good thing to empower government to implement social/financial/political change with the goal of improving the quality of human life?

Option two is the choice of both Democrats and Republicans (with slightly differing emphasis) and it remains wildly popular, because everyone of all political views thinks things could be better if only government would just force "those people" to change their behavior. However, history has shown option two inevitably leads to tyranny, even in the hands of well-intentioned leaders.

It takes a lot of courage to stand up for option one, because you will be attacked by everybody. Freedom is scary. That's why there are so few real libertarians these days.

25 posted on 04/08/2010 9:55:54 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ( "The right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended." - Rowan Atkinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

“NeoCons?” .... LOL!!! Here we go again.

These “NeoCons” have names, Jack Hunter? If so, then NAME ‘em and back it up. Name a single “ex-socialists who migrated Right” that is “devoted to promoting the maintenance and expansion of America’s global empire”.

Help us out here, Jack(ass). I’m drawing a blank.


26 posted on 04/08/2010 9:56:01 AM PDT by OkiMusashi (Beware the fury of a patient man. --- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Ayn Rand on Libertarianism:

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “A Nation’s Unity,” 1972]

AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers. But this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for President—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.

27 posted on 04/08/2010 10:00:05 AM PDT by Stepan12 (Palin & Bolton in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

I wonder if those attacking “libertarianism” oppose the health care bill because it’s unconstitutional? If we take that same question and apply it to the war on drugs, I wonder if “conservatives” could please point out where the federal government is empowered with the authority to regulate drugs??? I suppose some of the answers will sound very similar to a liberal trying to answer the same question about health care.

I HATE drugs... I just don’t believe in controlling others and telling them what to do. If anything, it should be left up to the states to decide because there is no constitutional authority to regulate drugs... not withstanding activist judges. And somehow that position isn’t conservative?


28 posted on 04/08/2010 10:02:59 AM PDT by daniel885
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

>> I would use the term “neo con” to refer to someone who supports undeclared wars, with undefined enemies, and rules of engagement which guarantee our troops will be pinned down for decades.

I assume you’re referring to the WOT ... because I’ve heard these complaints before (though typically on shows like DemocracyNow and Maddow, not on FR).

The war was declared (via Congressional resolutions/authorizations against both Afghanistan and Iraq). The enemy, though elusive and adept at blending in, is defined. The rules of engagement are unique due to the guerilla nature of the conflict ... but they do exist. All wars are engaged for an indefinite length until they’re over ... if, as you say, you want to “fight a war [...] for unconditional victory”, you certainly should understand that.

>> Fight a war with everything you’ve got, for unconditional victory, or don’t fight it at all.

Agreed. I think some tactical portions of this engagement have been mismanaged ... but fighting with everything for unconditional victory will not always result in a short conflict.

SnakeDoc


29 posted on 04/08/2010 10:04:38 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant [...] that even a god-king can bleed.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OkiMusashi
Olympia Snowe. Rudy Guilliani. Willard Romney. Norm Coleman. George HW Bush. George Voinovich.

For starters. There are more...

30 posted on 04/08/2010 10:06:09 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Stepan12

That’s a straw man argument. Libertarianism isn’t necessarily anarchism. Most libertarians in the United States are free-market miniarchists (like our founding fathers) who believe in a strictly limited government that exists to keep the peace and promote individual liberty. The views assosciated with libertarianism today were called “liberal” when our nation was founded and “conservative” in the early and middle 20th century. My views are in synch more or less with Barry Goldwater’s. Was he not a conservative?


31 posted on 04/08/2010 10:06:56 AM PDT by daniel885
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: NeoCaveman

Wrong. A neo-Conservative is simply a person who was previously a liberal or a leftist prior to seeing the light. Period. End of discussion

Unfortunately, all too often, the term neo-conservative has become a code word for anti-Semitism.


32 posted on 04/08/2010 10:07:26 AM PDT by Gen. Burkhalter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Stepan12
Yes. We know. We've seen the same irrelevant snippets on literally HUNDREDS of these threads over the years.

Now post something relevant.

33 posted on 04/08/2010 10:07:55 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

“Someone define “neoconservative” for me.”

Most people will tell you it is a Jewish conservative, and leave it at that.

I tend to think of them as progressive Republicans who like a little Keynesian welfarism to placate the masses and a strong military to establish US hegemony and spread Democracy.


34 posted on 04/08/2010 10:08:54 AM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pallis

I’ve gotten 10 posts in reponse to my post, and they all conflict, in various ways.

Seems to me it’s a pretty meaningless term.


35 posted on 04/08/2010 10:10:15 AM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: pallis

“Neo-conservative” is mostly used today to describe a conservative who believes in “liberal internationalism” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_internationalism] foreign policy.


36 posted on 04/08/2010 10:10:46 AM PDT by daniel885
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Nosterrex; rabscuttle385
Neoconservativism is what political sciences would call classical Liberalism...of Libertarianism today is closer to Anarchism than classical Liberalism.

You've actually got it 100% backwards there FRiend. Classical liberal (and Libertarian) philosophies put the value of laissez-faire policy above other methods of state interventionism. This not only includes internal economic policy...but especially foreign policy.

When goods cannot cross borders, armies will. --Frederic Bastiat

Both Batsiat and Adam Smith pretty much laid out the cornerstones of classical liberal foreign policy, from an economists point of view. Both believed that any form of state interventionism, whether based on trade, economic, or even security concerns (they did not really differentiate) were bad news for a nation's prosperity...especially wars.

But war, although the greatest of consumers, not only produces nothing in return, but, by abstracting labour from productive employment and interrupting the course of trade, it impedes, in a variety of indirect ways, the creation of wealth --Adam Smith

Although Neoconservatives will argue that our current interventionist policy is more toward our security than economics....Smith's predicted result is the same. This is where Neoconservatism and classical liberalism part ways completely. Free trade is the way to prosperity, not anarchism...this is the mainstream libertarian belief:

Something you should check out: FEDERALISM AND INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

37 posted on 04/08/2010 10:11:24 AM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; ..



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
38 posted on 04/08/2010 10:12:09 AM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gen. Burkhalter
Unfortunately, all too often, the term neo-conservative has become a code word for anti-Semitism.

Actually, that is why I do not use the term.

Wrong. A neo-Conservative is simply a person who was previously a liberal or a leftist prior to seeing the light. Period. End of discussion

I'd disagree that they've seen the light. Just because they were repulsed by some excess of the New Left or pacifism.

39 posted on 04/08/2010 10:12:13 AM PDT by NeoCaveman ("workers of the world unite, it's not just a slogan anymore" SEIU's Andy Stern)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
Something to play with...

http://politicalquiz.net/

40 posted on 04/08/2010 10:14:21 AM PDT by HangnJudge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca
Actually, if you look at all of them, they have one thing in common: They all involve expansion of the State beyond it's Constitutional boundaries.

The definition I gave you is probably the most concise you will get.

41 posted on 04/08/2010 10:14:23 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
We are going after the foot soldiers of the enemy while their ideological and financial support structures in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia remain inviolate.

If you think that only the likes of Rachel Maddow are entitled to make this point, I strongly beg to differ.

We knew that World War II would be "of indefinite length until over" but we also knew that the war had to end with Hitler at the end of a rope, and the Nazi ideology ground out of existence. I have no faith that any equivalent event will bring the "war on terror" to a close.

Failing that, I'll know the war is being won when I can carry my Leatherman on an airliner again, when the metal detectors come down at the Smithsonian, and the concrete barriers disappear from Pennsylvania avenue. Care to speculate on the time frame for those events??

42 posted on 04/08/2010 10:15:31 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Mi Tio es infermo, pero la carretera es verde!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

A Reagan democrat or a Jewish conservative is mostly what I’ve understood it to mean.


43 posted on 04/08/2010 10:17:57 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
in 1976 said Reagan, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." As you can see, advocating for "limited government" without employing some degree of libertarianism would be logistically impossible.

And Reagan was the one who confronted the soviets on multiple fronts with multiple proxy wars and broke their back.

Its better, if you want to have a discussion, to just lay out what it is you believe rather than throwing epithets around. If you think we should withdraw from Afghanistan, say so and explain how we can make such a withdrawal work.

We are in the process of drawing down our forces in Iraq as the Iraqis are assuming control. If you want to accelerate that process, and bring the forces out quicker, say so and explain how it works. Right now we are assuming we'll leave a force in Kuwait as a reserve that could intervene if the Iranians try to crush the government in Baghdad or any of the other gulf states. If thats a mistake, say so and defend it.

If you are a pragmatist who thinks our friendship with Israel is the cause of all our troubles in the world, again, say so. Then we can have an actual discussion or debate about the specifics of your or our views.

Just calling someone a neocon doesn't mean much. Most of us here aren't jewish intellectuals, and if we were, the word still muddies more than it clarifies.

44 posted on 04/08/2010 10:18:44 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Jack has redeemed himself somewhat.


45 posted on 04/08/2010 10:19:14 AM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bamahead
I am trying to figure out how we can discuss this matter without me having to quote long passages from my books on political philosophy. I do not know if it is beneficial to get into a debate over definitions. Classical Liberalism is more concerned about INDIVIDUAL freedoms than international affairs. Would you agree with that? I am trying to find some common ground between us.
46 posted on 04/08/2010 10:23:53 AM PDT by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

>> We are going after the foot soldiers of the enemy while their ideological and financial support structures in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia remain inviolate.

I agree in part ... though the individual nature of attacks on the American homeland (including a huge attack carried out by 19 people) necessitates that we take out the “foot soldiers”.

>> If you think that only the likes of Rachel Maddow are entitled to make this point, I strongly beg to differ.

You have the right to make whatever point you’d like ... though if, in a discussion of foriegn policy, I found myself surrounded by Rachel Maddow and Amy Goodman, I’d likely re-think my position.

>> I’ll know the war is being won when I can carry my Leatherman on an airliner again, when the metal detectors come down at the Smithsonian, and the concrete barriers disappear from Pennsylvania avenue. Care to speculate on the time frame for those events??

Your definition of “victory” includes metal detector placement at the Smithsonian?

Terrorist attacks have revealed vulnerabilities — is it your belief that those vulnerabilities should be restored as a sign of victory? Is it ever a good idea for us to forget the lessons of the last war? If Islamic terrorists can attack and destabilize via hijacked airliners or individual suicide bombers, so can other enemies (China, Iran, Russia, whomever).

SnakeDoc


47 posted on 04/08/2010 10:25:00 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant [...] that even a god-king can bleed.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca
Dick Cheney gave an interesting interview in the run-up to the Iraq War, where he unwittingly revealed why Iraq was so important - because from there, all the surrounding countries could be attacked. Obviously, the US is trying to be dragged into an attack on Iran now. Syria would be after that, then Saudi Arabia ... hey, the neocons have big plans for American troops in the Middle East!

Strategic interests? You have to ask? The US is a trading nation, and has an overriding economic interest in good relations with all the countries in the Middle East, some of which have strategic locations and resources.


48 posted on 04/08/2010 10:25:53 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Nosterrex

Yes. But those individual freedoms extend beyond our borders because they are natural rights. Enlightenment era liberalism was non-interventionist in foreign policy for the most part. Our founders urged us not to make alliances (including Washington’s farewell address where he warned of “entangling alliances”).


49 posted on 04/08/2010 10:26:07 AM PDT by daniel885
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

I want nothing to do with your hideous Libertarians. Anti-Semitism, pro child molestation, drug/dope usage, sympathy for Islamic terrorism (when that Libertarian party member was shot and seriously wounded by John Allen Mohammed, Reason magazine and other Libertarian organs scarcely reported on it), support for homosexual rights; etc., are just too much for me to bear.


50 posted on 04/08/2010 10:29:55 AM PDT by Stepan12 (Palin & Bolton in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-178 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson