In response to:

Behind the Crack-up of the Right

Tacitus X Wrote: Jun 22, 2012 7:51 AM
Buchanan is consistent but often wrong-headed. He favors isolationism in both economic and military matters. His economic views were destroyed more than two centuries ago by Adam Smith. Military isolationism may or may not work, depending on the gravity of the threat. Ignoring Hitler until it was almost too late was a grave mistake. Ignoring WMD's in the hands of jihadists is extremely foolish. The purpose of the military is to defend the U.S., and credible threats to the U.S. should be destroyed as efficiently and effectively as possible. Terrorists and dictators have no "rights" we need respect. It is a contradiction to say they have a "right" to violate others' rights. They are criminals who operate globally, not "sovereigns."
Fuzzy2 Wrote: Jun 22, 2012 8:59 AM
Tactitus X -

I, personally, think we need to defend our allies. Going up against Hitler was our duty as an ally to England, France, etc.

As for defending against "credible threats" - I'm afraid that is the utopian pipe-dream Pat refers to. Policing the World just isn't a realistid endeavor. Yes, it would be nice if we could eliminate all threats. But we can't. We never will.

Only by forcing our will on every nation of the Earth could we ever hope to do so. Forcing by threat of war. This goes against everything America was founded upon. Against the God who made you and I. Against the principles of freedom.
Tacitus X Wrote: Jun 22, 2012 10:28 AM
You're confused. We don't have a "duty" to take out international criminals but we do have the right to do so if we decide it's in our national interest. "Policing the world" is the opposite of what I'm saying. We go in and destroy their ability to harm us, e.g., destroying their WMD capabilities. I have no interest in "policing" them. No one is saying we should or could "eliminate all threats," but that isn't a good reason for not eliminating the obvious ones. Your position is like saying we should just legalize murder since we can't stop all murders. As long as other nations' "will" doesn't include threatening the U.S., they would have nothing to fear.
WesternMilitant Wrote: Jun 22, 2012 8:06 AM
But as long as we continue to wage wars in a a half-hearted manner, we will continute to waste lives and money. We need to rarely engage in wars, but when we do, we need to destroy the enemy utterly. We know who the enemy is now. It is the toxic totalitarian ideology called Islam. The top 3 countries funding terrorism are Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan. We need to eliminate these 3 countries. Level them. Let everyone else in the Middle East understand they could be next. You always have peace when your enemies are dead. We have forgotten this principle.
Robert 206 Wrote: Jun 22, 2012 8:28 AM
Agreed! We can't buy these fanatics off. We were giving Egypt a billion dollars a year and look what that got us: Muslim jihadists taking over! They only understand one thing: the iron fist!
Fuzzy2 Wrote: Jun 22, 2012 8:41 AM
Yes. We seem to prefer mass death over a decade rather than in a month. Not sure why.

The healing process can start 9yrs and 11 months sooner if we just get it over with quickly.
Robert 206 Wrote: Jun 22, 2012 7:59 AM
Agreed, and it makes no sense to continue to allow Muslims to immigrate to this country!
wmou Wrote: Jun 22, 2012 7:59 AM
I will never understand war-mongers. As Buchanan points out, you sound like a Soviet communist.
Tacitus X Wrote: Jun 22, 2012 10:19 AM
A little history to help you "understand." The Soviets were allied with Hitler until he double-crossed them. My position is the opposite: I'm saying Hitler should have been opposed early on before he was strong enough to threaten the world - in other words the opposite of the Soviet communist position. Russia is currently carrying out joint military exercises with China and Iran. North Korea is a client state of China. The Communist Party U.S.A. agrees with your stance on appeasing totalitarian threats from the left. Failing to oppose a credible threat in its nascent stages led to the last World War, so my position is the opposite of "war mongering." It was the appeasers whose policies resulted in world war.

In introducing his new book, "Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America," Paul Gottfried identifies a fundamental divide between neoconservatives and the traditional right. The divide is over the question: What is this nation, America?

Straussians, writes Gottfried, "wish to present the construction of government as an open-ended rationalist process. All children of the Enlightenment, once properly instructed, should be able to carry out this ... task."

For traditional conservatives, before the nation is born, "ethnic and cultural preconditions" must exist. All "successful constitutional orders," he writes, "are the expressions of already formed nations and cultures."