Neo-con blogger bashes libertarians:

[Ogre]

And to add, this blogger is the typical condescending R/Neocon. He deletes any pro libertarian comments so he doesnt ahve to defend against them. That page is little more than a R/neocon love fest

 

[bigus_D]

Exactly the kind of inability to face reaility, the same weak unwillingness to defend this country, the same Maginot Line mentality the author was referrencing. Like I said, I think he's right. Libertarian policy would have this nation conquered by outside forces in less than a decade.

 

[djl02]

Neocons like the constitution to evolve with the changing times, so they can either completely ignore parts of it or use legislation to trump the document...

The Patriot Act is just one fine example of this Neocon mentality.
Neocons will bring death to this country. As long as we are over there, they will be attacking us over here.

+1

 

[ocsdor]

If the blogger believes what he writes, perhaps he should get off the keyboard and get his self to Iraq/Afghanistan and put his money where his mouth is. Typical Neo-Con.

 

[level.eleven]

I can't tell if he is being serious or not. Kind of sounds like a minor league name caller like Monica Crowley or Ann Coulter. He certainly doesn't have a grasp on libertarians.

 

[rambone]

This blogger actually writes a whole blog about how he is proud to be neoconservative, just 2 blogs down from the link I posted. hahahaha at least he is honest.

 

[irishfan]

Gotta love union quality made products...that button has the union bug printed at the bottom and you can see the quality and workmanship that went into making that button look as good as it does...see how centered it is...that is union quality right there...

So you are part of the bitter bashing and ridiculous comment party right?

Back on topic....I think the article from the OP is right in many ways but I do not agree with all of it either. I have never found myself aligned completely with one party at any time or any one line of thinking. Also, I like some Libertarian policy points but greatly disagree with a few as well.

 

[HICKMAN]

If the blogger believes what he writes, perhaps he should get off the keyboard and get his self to Iraq/Afghanistan and put his money where his mouth is. Typical Neo-Con.

being that cons make up the majority of the military, it's just fine that some can fulfill roles back here while the others take up the slack...

anyone you call a chickenhawk would pick up a rifle here at home if need be, not everyone is fit to serve in the military, but would die in defense of this nation.

 

[irishfan]

being that cons make up the majority of the military, it's just fine that some can fulfill roles back here while the others take up the slack...

anyone you call a chickenhawk would pick up a rifle here at home if need be, not everyone is fit to serve in the military, but would die in defense of this nation.

Exactly!!! Not everyone passes on the military because it is their choice.

 

[ddenny5]

BS

Are you so fearful of the rest of the world that you unconditionally support keeping troops in every corner of the globe because of what someone might do? I've got news for you, right or wrong, this nation can't afford your mentality. A majority of the world allows those that would do us harm safe passage and blind eye. Are you saying we should start all out war with any nation that has aided those or might likely aid those who would attack us? If thats the case you might as well burn any greenbacks you have because it's gonna cost you 1K$ for a loaf of bread (and no I don't have any supporting statistics for this figure). Imperialism doesn't work. How many military bases does China have outside of China? What country holds our economy and our future economy by the balls? I'm all for defending this country, but lets defend it against someone who actually attacks us, not keep a sizeable amount of our defenses around the globe for others benefit and our economic detriment. The levels of spending across all of government have done more to weaken our defenses than pulling back all troop ever could. At some point China will turn off the spigot and the money will stop flowing, they will overtake us with out firing a shot, if they haven't already....

I agree with what you are saying. The USA cannot be the police of the world. Look how long we have had troops in Europe. We never fully withdrew after WWII. Other counties need to stand on their own two feet instead on relying on the USA for protection.

 

[ATF Consumer]

So you are part of the bitter bashing and ridiculous comment party right?

Back on topic....I think the article from the OP is right in many ways but I do not agree with all of it either. I have never found myself aligned completely with one party at any time or any one line of thinking. Also, I like some Libertarian policy points but greatly disagree with a few as well.

All I stated was the level of quality...nothing mean, bitter or distasteful whatsoever.

 

[ocsdor]

being that cons make up the majority of the military, it's just fine that some can fulfill roles back here while the others take up the slack...

anyone you call a chickenhawk would pick up a rifle here at home if need be, not everyone is fit to serve in the military, but would die in defense of this nation.

I don't know who you served with, but my 4 years enlisted in the 90's was NOT served with a majority Neo-Con.

As far as chickenhawks go, I wonder what the excuses will be when the standards for serving become so low (as during a world war) that almost anyone can serve.

Does anyone know if the blogger has served or was ever fit to serve, but didn't? That would be interesting to know.

 

[Joe Williams]

I agree with what you are saying. The USA cannot be the police of the world. Look how long we have had troops in Europe. We never fully withdrew after WWII. Other counties need to stand on their own two feet instead on relying on the USA for protection.

Yep, we kept troops there. And as a result we haven't had to send them there to fight, again. Seems cheaper to me to have 'em in place and successfully deterring another world war for more than half a century.

 

[88GT]

BS

Are you so fearful of the rest of the world that you unconditionally support keeping troops in every corner of the globe because of what someone might do? I've got news for you, right or wrong, this nation can't afford your mentality. A majority of the world allows those that would do us harm safe passage and blind eye. Are you saying we should start all out war with any nation that has aided those or might likely aid those who would attack us? If thats the case you might as well burn any greenbacks you have because it's gonna cost you 1K$ for a loaf of bread (and no I don't have any supporting statistics for this figure). Imperialism doesn't work. How many military bases does China have outside of China? What country holds our economy and our future economy by the balls? I'm all for defending this country, but lets defend it against someone who actually attacks us, not keep a sizeable amount of our defenses around the globe for others benefit and our economic detriment. The levels of spending across all of government have done more to weaken our defenses than pulling back all troop ever could. At some point China will turn off the spigot and the money will stop flowing, they will overtake us with out firing a shot, if they haven't already....

I agree with what you are saying. The USA cannot be the police of the world. Look how long we have had troops in Europe. We never fully withdrew after WWII. Other counties need to stand on their own two feet instead on relying on the USA for protection.

Both are straw men. There is a world of difference between preparing for a strong defense (which takes many forms) and playing at world police. A strict implementation of the Libertarian platform is a potentially dangerous play. Isolationism is just as impractical as, what was it called? Imperialism? Please.

Weakness is provocative. It doesn't matter whether it's an inability to react or an unwillingness. It's going to draw the challengers.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Yep, we kept troops there. And as a result we haven't had to send them there to fight, again. Seems cheaper to me to have 'em in place and successfully deterring another world war for more than half a century.

You can say that just as easily as I can say, that because we have our troops in every corner of the world is one of the biggest reasons we are being attacked on US soil. No amount of troops on foreign land will ever stop the attacks on our land. Our troops need to be in a position to protect the US, not some foreign country that we have already bailed out at least once. I do believe we should have special forces with CIA working to fight terrorism overseas. It doesn't take an army to defeat them. Seems to me that we are just wasting away tax dollars...it makes me sick seeing how many billions we give to foreign countries...

 

[88GT]

You can say that just as easily as I can say, that because we have our troops in every corner of the world is one of the biggest reasons we are being attacked on US soil. No amount of troops on foreign land will ever stop the attacks on our land. Our troops need to be in a position to protect the US, not some foreign country that we have already bailed out at least once. I do believe we should have special forces with CIA working to fight terrorism overseas. It doesn't take an army to defeat them. Seems to me that we are just wasting away tax dollars...it makes me sick seeing how many billions we give to foreign countries...

What will, in your opinion, stop the attacks? Could anything prevent them wholescale so that we would never have to experience it again?

Are you equating foreign aid with military presence overseas? Is there no inherent value in having military installments in other countries? None at all?

Serious questions, no sarcasm intended.

 

[Lars]

How about we start by not giving 8 billion dollars a year in the form of aid to countries that hate us. I'd take that as a first step happily.

 

[ATF Consumer]

What will, in your opinion, stop the attacks? Could anything prevent them wholescale so that we would never have to experience it again?

Are you equating foreign aid with military presence overseas? Is there no inherent value in having military installments in other countries? None at all?

Serious questions, no sarcasm intended.

I don't think there is a away to stop it, no matter what we do in attempts to prevent it. The only way to be for sure is to strip the citizens of their rights and that seems to be the direction we are headed with these over stepping law-makers.

Maybe I am equating foreign aid with military presence...it all goes to them, not us, right? Those foreign bases aren't ran for free. Look at how much we give to Israel for military support.

Sure there is value, but the cost out-ways the benefit. Why is it our responsibility to continue to protect these countries long after they have been well established. South Korea's economy is kicking the US's economy in the can. We set them up and they are more than capable of taking care of themselves.

If we continue down the current path, we will repeat the history of Rome.

 

[88GT]

I don't think there is a away to stop it, no matter what we do in attempts to prevent it. The only way to be for sure is to strip the citizens of their rights and that seems to be the direction we are headed with these over stepping law-makers.

Maybe I am equating foreign aid with military presence...it all goes to them, not us, right? Those foreign bases aren't ran for free. Look at how much we give to Israel for military support.

Sure there is value, but the cost out-ways the benefit. Why is it our responsibility to continue to protect these countries long after they have been well established. South Korea's economy is kicking the US's economy in the can. We set them up and they are more than capable of taking care of themselves.

If we continue down the current path, we will repeat the history of Rome.

I thought that might be your response. And to a certain extent, I don't disagree.

But I think it's an oversimplistic view to characterize foreign bases as serving only protective roles for the "host" nations. I also disagree that the benefits are unidirectional in favor of the host nations. How much harder would prosecution of a military engagement in the Middle East, for example, be if we didn't have bases in countries with whom we have friendly relations? How important it is that wounded service personnel only have to travel as far as Germany instead of back to the U.S.? How important is it that we don't have to worry about logistics for non-bomber air combat/support missions because we can only launch from the U.S? How important is it that no matter who might be responsible for an attack, we are strategically placed throughout the world on some level to provide at least a minimum of response in near immediate terms rather than having to wait for however long it took to mobilize an entire combat unit because every last response option we have is on U.S. soil? With the exception of bomber strikes, we would be severely limited in the scope and scale of our reach. What would the "cost" of those things be?

I'd also argue that military bases on foreign soil are a bit of a bargaining chip, just another tool in the tool box known as foreign relations. On the surface our presence may be seen as a one-way street benefits derived for the host nation. But only a fool would think that they "Hey, we can leave and find another more accommodating neighbor" doesn't come into play.

Now, I know that the isolationist prong of the L platform is going to argue that we shouldn't become embroiled in wars on foreign soil. But for ****s and giggles, let's assume that we are attacked? Are you suggesting that we fight only on our soil? That we don't take the fight to them and ruin their land, their economy, their stability?

The idea that we could ever have avoided playing on the world stage is almost laughable. Our infancy made us appealing targets: unformed armies, lack of a strong central government, divisions within our own member states. The list was long. From the get-go we were forced to accept and prepare for the eventuality of attack. That hasn't changed. Only the motivation behind the potential attacks.

I'd love to discuss the foreign aid side of it. As well as the use of "imperialism" to describe our presence in other countries (talk about a gross error in characterization.) But it's late and I need to get to bed. So while I don't disagree that there are some seriously flawed policy decisions being made, it's irresponsible and unrealistic to think that we can just take our ball and go home now.

 

[rhino]

Probably time for me to add that "libertarian" and "Libertarian" are not synonymous.
One is a term for belief in and adherence to some fundamental, quintessentially American principles (i.e. the primacy and dignity of the indivdual, individual liberty and freedom, and the commensurate responsibility that is intrinsically linked to that liberty and freedom), whereas the latter is a political party with an agenda and a platform. I am definitely libertarian, but I have no use for the Libertarian Party or any political party for that matter.

Not all people who are libertarian are isolationists. In fact, most of my acquaintance are not.

Political labels continue to progress toward meaningless words, primarily because no two people can seem to use them consistently with the same definition. I never understood what "neo-con" was supposed to be, whether it was a proud statement or some kind of derisive insult or both. It's meaningless to me, much in the same way "liberal" is.