Prescision strikes

[delhalew]

by our special forces, are most favoritist method of bad guy *** ****age.
For those of you who are too new to know that I am some kind of radical, with a strong Libertarian bent, let me talk about real conservatism or Paleo-conservatism.

In a land of little r republicanism, the conservative method of waging a war against something as ethereal as terror is not to occupy and train more militants. Rather historically the most efficient method is to allow the most effective special forces teams on earth to do what do SO well. Instead of paying billions to Pakistan for their "help".

This is nothing new. We have the ability. Anyone who believes this alongside a general policy of non-intervention is the best foreign policy is said to be weak on defense. We all know the reason is that perpetual war is good for business, for some people, but not for our nation.

I'm just saying, if you think you might be Conservative, then you might consider really commiting to the idea rather roll with this modern bastard son of what the true conservatives would have endorsed. Just because a change took place in the early 1900's, doesn't mean we are locked in.

Right now, your leaders want you to watch the D vs R puppet show, and forget that there are other options, even within those parties...and no, I'm not talking about Trump Republicans.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I was interested in how the folks over at Cato Institute would react to OBL killing. They have five articles posted. Here is a slice from one, that touches on one of your points.



On Monday, neoconservative Max Boot wrote, somewhat nervously, "Don't assume that with bin Laden gone, the rationale for the war effort in Afghanistan also disappears."

Boot's right that having a presence in Afghanistan helped us carry out the operation that killed bin Laden. But how deep a "footprint" do we need? We now have nearly 100,000 troops in-country chasing what President Obama's CIA director admits are "50 to 100" al Qaeda operatives, "maybe less."

We certainly don't need to continue funding what George Will has called "New Deal 2.0" in Afghanistan, complete with agricultural subsidies to discourage opium growing, a 900,000-square-foot police training center for the country's illiterate and corrupt security forces, and USAID-sponsored pro-democracy "kite festivals."

Is bin Laden's death "merely symbolic"? Perhaps, but "merely" ignores the importance of symbols in a fight that has a large ideological component. And the symbolism involved in giving the one-time iconic figure a thug's death allows us to put an end to an era of tragically wrongheaded strategy. We should declare victory, and come home

[delhalew]

Right. I am not naive enough to think we can withdraw entirely, but I am adamant that such an occupation will rarely be necessary in the future. Also, that we are bumbling about in Libya.

[Aldebaran]

I think it's funny that real republicans would identify with a term that harkens back to the age of Dinosaurs... You know... Those mythological creatures that Barack Hussein Obama's father planted to trip up those smartasses who think we come descended from monkeys.

[SoonerProphet]

Right. I am not naive enough to think we can withdraw entirely, but I am adamant that such an occupation will rarely be necessary in the future. Also, that we are bumbling about in Libya.

Why can't we? Exactly what are we accomplishing there, or do we intend on accomplilshing there?

[KantoSooner]

To me, the balance between the benefits that a social existance brings (and, at its roots, that's the question: what of my perfect, lonely, individual freedom must I give up to gain the company of my fellow people...and what benefits do I derive from that association?) was best struck for modern times by Barry Goldwater. (and, earlier and much more intellectually, by J. S. Mill).

Isolationism is a chimera. There are bears in the woods. And, even if you decide to never venture into the woods, sooner or later, those bears will come looking for you, on your turf.

[delhalew]

I think it's funny that real republicans would identify with a term that harkens back to the age of Dinosaurs... You know... Those mythological creatures that Barack Hussein Obama's father planted to trip up those smartasses who think we come descended from monkeys.

That is because you are either a fool (my vote), or engaging in the oldest game in the progressive toolbox. Mislabeling.

I never said anything about any religious right or religious fundamentalism. The only relationship between religion and Conservatism is the acknowledgments that our individual inalienable rights do not come from man. They are much bigger than that.

Also, that we all gave the freedom of our own religion. Notice that does NOT include the eradication of religion in the public arena.

Of course, even if we were discussing the so called religious right, you managed to mischaracterize them as well, due to the fact that you are an @sshole. Or you think you're funny. Or both.

[delhalew]

Why can't we? Exactly what are we accomplishing there, or do we intend on accomplilshing there?

Depends. If you want to continue to quell terrorist activity, it seem that intelligence structure would be needed.

Not to mention the old argument, you broke it. You bought it.

[delhalew]

To me, the balance between the benefits that a social existance brings (and, at its roots, that's the question: what of my perfect, lonely, individual freedom must I give up to gain the company of my fellow people...and what benefits do I derive from that association?) was best struck for modern times by Barry Goldwater. (and, earlier and much more intellectually, by J. S. Mill).

Isolationism is a chimera. There are bears in the woods. And, even if you decide to never venture into the woods, sooner or later, those bears will come looking for you, on your turf.

I doubt you and I will find much disagreement. True isolationism would be a disaster. I only argue that a responsible, conservative approach does not an isolationist make.

[SoonerProphet]

imo, the term isolationism is meant to stifle debate. a means to deride anyone who has an idea outside the current norm.

[delhalew]

imo, the term isolationism is meant to stifle debate. a means to deride anyone who has an idea outside the current norm.

Right. Both sides of the aisle have far too much invested in a state of perpetual war. They fail to realize that readiness and proactive foreign policy can support military industrial complex, without letting it own us.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

That is a poorly reasoned opinion given what isolationism as foreign policy has been over literally hundreds of years of history.

I don't even understand how you could come to that conclusion given what an isolationist approach to foreign policy is versus what you deem is a word used "to deride anyone who has an idea outside the current norm". That's like saying pork chops come from pigs but pork chops in all reality are a tool to make fun of subaru owners.

[delhalew]

That is a poorly reasoned opinion given what isolationism as foreign policy has been over literally hundreds of years of history.

I don't even understand how you could come to that conclusion given what an isolationist approach to foreign policy is versus what you deem is a word used "to deride anyone who has an idea outside the current norm". That's like saying pork chops come from pigs but pork chops in all reality are a tool to make fun of subaru owners.

I guess we are even. I have no idea what you are talking about.

[SoonerProphet]

That is a poorly reasoned opinion given what isolationism as foreign policy has been over literally hundreds of years of history.

right, operative word there being current. and not to be to snide, but "current" could date to 12/7/1941...i reckon.;)


I don't even understand how you could come to that conclusion given what an isolationist approach to foreign policy is versus what you deem is a word used "to deride anyone who has an idea outside the current norm". That's like saying pork chops come from pigs but pork chops in all reality are a tool to make fun of subaru owners.

Both political parties,and various ideologues within those parties, are quick to shout down any politician who speaks out against our role as "global hegemon". It is a role that has, imo, cost way to much cash with very little return.

I don't get the pork chop analogy so, ok, i guess.

[JohnnyMack]

That is a poorly reasoned opinion given what isolationism as foreign policy has been over literally hundreds of years of history.


I think one of the problems I have is that if you reject the status quo of the Military Industrial Complex as well as our current foreign policy strategy you're immediately branded an isolationist. It's the kind of black/white, overly simplistic dogma that people like Tuba are well versed in.

[NormanPride]

Is Tuba alive?

[KantoSooner]

Isolationism has long been a favored response to the rest of the world by the American Exceptionalists. In its essence, it draws back to the Puritans and their combo play of fear of the outside world admixed with contempt for it. There's a strong passive/aggressive root there: the English public would not agree to do things their way, so the Puritans condemned their neighbors as evil and took their ball and went off to America.
The primary problem with isolationism is that it's never existed and never could exist. Even the Puritans suffered greatly through losses of population when people fled the strictures of Puritan Boston to go live with the Indians (who were, at that time, healthier, freer and in all ways happier than their laced-up-in-wool-corset English neighbors). They were also players in a great game between England, Holland, France, and even Sweden for colonial dominance of NE America.
The point being that America has never been isolated, either accidentally or on purpose. And, in today's world could not be. Our choices are between different levels of engagement.
And we have played the game masterfully and the modern world runs very much to our benefit (the whole Breton Woods structure installed post WWII is utterly slanted in our benefit). If we must keep several hundred thousand troops positioned around the world and jigger with trade policy to induce China to 'switch rather than fight', then so be it. We've been without a serious existential threat for more than 60 years and without any real threat at all for the last 25 or so. (terrorists can kill people, but do not pose a threat to the country's existance.)
What other nation in history has enjoyed that leisure? Our foreign policy managers, in administrations run by both parties, have actually done a rather brilliant job over the past 2-3 generations.

[delhalew]

Isolationism has long been a favored response to the rest of the world by the American Exceptionalists. In its essence, it draws back to the Puritans and their combo play of fear of the outside world admixed with contempt for it. There's a strong passive/aggressive root there: the English public would not agree to do things their way, so the Puritans condemned their neighbors as evil and took their ball and went off to America.
The primary problem with isolationism is that it's never existed and never could exist. Even the Puritans suffered greatly through losses of population when people fled the strictures of Puritan Boston to go live with the Indians (who were, at that time, healthier, freer and in all ways happier than their laced-up-in-wool-corset English neighbors). They were also players in a great game between England, Holland, France, and even Sweden for colonial dominance of NE America.
The point being that America has never been isolated, either accidentally or on purpose. And, in today's world could not be. Our choices are between different levels of engagement.
And we have played the game masterfully and the modern world runs very much to our benefit (the whole Breton Woods structure installed post WWII is utterly slanted in our benefit). If we must keep several hundred thousand troops positioned around the world and jigger with trade policy to induce China to 'switch rather than fight', then so be it. We've been without a serious existential threat for more than 60 years and without any real threat at all for the last 25 or so. (terrorists can kill people, but do not pose a threat to the country's existance.)
What other nation in history has enjoyed that leisure? Our foreign policy managers, in administrations run by both parties, have actually done a rather brilliant job over the past 2-3 generations.

I guess I was wrong about finding disagreement, as minor as it is.

The Puritans who founded this nation remained engaged with Britain and didn't perceive them as particularly evil until their interference became to great.

Also, these degrees you speak of are the key for me.

I contend we could find ourselves as the world superpower with smarter, more measured use of our influence that may find us in a less untenable position with regards to debt as well as the golum like growth of the federal government.