Poking the Bear Again

[Smitty-48]

You asked me, by name, to explain. I offered an explanation - I never expected you to like it or agree with me.

I actually didn’t know what a NeoCon was 2 years ago. I knew I didn’t like Bill Kristol or Dick Cheney
because they seemed like idiots, but I couldn’t identify what the problem was. It was StA that told us they were Fascists, and Smitty who bounced it around. I’m pretty sure all of us learned together; that’s why I like this forum. But I’m a Libertyist, so Commies & Fascists are literally deadly to my well-being.

I firmly believe that a multi-polar world with competing superpowers will result in more violence, more militarism, and more economically wasteful destruction than a world with one American 'hyperpower.' I suppose that makes me a Neocon. If you think that also makes me a Fascist - not much I can do about that.

I'm a Neconservative but I think the hyperpower model is a mistake, imperial hubris in Washington

it results in America being spread too thin, trying to be all things to all people

I think America would have more leverage by taking on less tasks

defense specific inflation is making the hyperpower too costly, but it's also unwieldy

[Martin Hash]

If being a Libertyist is synonymous with being a Pacifist - well, I ain't that.

If liberty is compatible with muscular foreign policy that maintains Western global dominance - sign me up.

I’m a pacifist like Trump, and you’re a Fascist. Now that I know what a Fascist is, I’m serious about joining Antifa except they’re Commies.

If we are going to call each other Fascists, it was Neville Chamberlain's appeasement (pacifism) that led to the last WW. It took muscular foreign policy to clean up that mess too.

Dude, finally you make sense. You are my ideological enemy, of course, and it explains why you think you know better-n-me. I will dismiss your opinion like I dismiss Commie Monte’s.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I actually didn’t know what a NeoCon was 2 years ago. I knew I didn’t like Bill Kristol or Dick Cheney
because they seemed like idiots, but I couldn’t identify what the problem was. It was StA that told us they were Fascists, and Smitty who bounced it around. I’m pretty sure all of us learned together; that’s why I like this forum. But I’m a Libertyist, so Commies & Fascists are literally deadly to my well-being.

I firmly believe that a multi-polar world with competing superpowers will result in more violence, more militarism, and more economically wasteful destruction than a world with one American 'hyperpower.' I suppose that makes me a Neocon. If you think that also makes me a Fascist - not much I can do about that.

I'm a Neconservative but I think the hyperpower model is a mistake, imperial hubris in Washington

it results in America being spread too thin, trying to be all things to all people

I think America would have more leverage by taking on less tasks

defense specific inflation is making the hyperpower too costly, but it's also unwieldy

It is only feasible if we have iron-firm alliances in Western Europe and the Pacific.

Delegation to subordinate military powers, and trust from them, makes it possible. Without that.... probably not.

edit: used the wrong 'to' and it made me feel like an idiot, so I had to change it.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I’m a pacifist like Trump, and you’re a Fascist. Now that I know what a Fascist is, I’m serious about joining Antifa except they’re Commies.

If we are going to call each other Fascists, it was Neville Chamberlain's appeasement (pacifism) that led to the last WW. It took muscular foreign policy to clean up that mess too.

Dude, finally you make sense. You are my ideological enemy, of course, and it explains why you think you know better-n-me. I will dismiss your opinion like I dismiss Commie Monte’s.

I don't think you are my ideological enemy, and I don't think I know-better-n-you. I think we disagree about the best way to secure liberty through foreign policy - a subject that has plenty of room for good faith disagreement.

[Smitty-48]

It is only feasible if we have iron-firm alliances in Western Europe and the Pacific.

Delegation too subordinate military powers, and trust from them, makes it possible. Without that.... probably not.

I don't think there is such a thing as iron-firm alliances, all alliances are negotiable & finite

countries only have interests, soon as it is not in their interests to fight for America, they don't

it's naive to think that these countries are iron-firm on anything, governments can change overnight

[Martin Hash]

If we are going to call each other Fascists, it was Neville Chamberlain's appeasement (pacifism) that led to the last WW. It took muscular foreign policy to clean up that mess too.

Dude, finally you make sense. You are my ideological enemy, of course, and it explains why you think you know better-n-me. I will dismiss your opinion like I dismiss Commie Monte’s.

I don't think you are my ideological enemy, and I don't think I know-better-n-you. I think we disagree about the best way to secure liberty through foreign policy - a subject that has plenty of room for good faith disagreement.

Don’t need the hassle; Smitty keeps me NeoCon informed without being a dick.

[Smitty-48]

NeoCon gets a bad name because people think George W. Bush was a NeoCon

he actually wasn't a NeoCon tho, Colin Powell was the NeoCon, but Bush didn't take Powell's advice

the NeoCon position on Iraq was not to invade, the NeoCon position was Pottery Barn Rule

what Bush did was radical & ill advised by NeoCon standards

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

It is only feasible if we have iron-firm alliances in Western Europe and the Pacific.

Delegation too subordinate military powers, and trust from them, makes it possible. Without that.... probably not.

I don't think there is such a thing as iron-firm alliances, all alliances are negotiable & finite

countries only have interests, soon as it is not in their interests to fight for America, they don't

it's naive to think that these countries are iron-firm on anything, governments can change overnight

Well - it is the dream, at least. Sort of like Velvet Revolutions. They are the best, cheapest, and most bloodless way to get rid of Communists. But, probably impracticable.

I don't have an idea about what would work better than an Imperial Hyperpower, having been fortunate enough to live in a post-Reagan world of American absolute dominance.

[Smitty-48]

It is only feasible if we have iron-firm alliances in Western Europe and the Pacific.

Delegation too subordinate military powers, and trust from them, makes it possible. Without that.... probably not.

I don't think there is such a thing as iron-firm alliances, all alliances are negotiable & finite

countries only have interests, soon as it is not in their interests to fight for America, they don't

it's naive to think that these countries are iron-firm on anything, governments can change overnight

Well - it is the dream, at least. Sort of like Velvet Revolutions. They are the best, cheapest, and most bloodless way to get rid of Communists. But, probably impracticable..

that's the naive position of the Obamacons

in reality Velvet Revolutions are the more radical interventions inciting the more explosive fallout

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Dude, finally you make sense. You are my ideological enemy, of course, and it explains why you think you know better-n-me. I will dismiss your opinion like I dismiss Commie Monte’s.

I don't think you are my ideological enemy, and I don't think I know-better-n-you. I think we disagree about the best way to secure liberty through foreign policy - a subject that has plenty of room for good faith disagreement.

Don’t need the hassle; Smitty keeps me NeoCon informed without being a dick.

That's what makes you wyse, buddy. Smitty is a better informed Neocon, and I am a dick - don't intend it - I just have a shitty, dicky tone, I guess.