J.R. said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

historian said:

---

It depends CB on which faction of the GOP you are talking about. Just like now, there were different groups with different priorities. Granted, the isolationists were very much in the minority after WWII but the had some important leaders in Congress.

---

I think it's pretty reasonable to tell American Jews and Israel they can kill as many people as they want with their own money and resources, but Legacy Americans who come from the families who built the United States dont want our tax dollars being stolen/misappropriated and used to bribe our own representatives to pass legislation that put a foreign nation over our own interests.

The only countries I would entertain limited foreign aid to is Mexico and some Central Americans countries to enforce law and order in their own countries and limit the invasion of our southern border.

There is zero benefit to middle America from bombing Yeman half the world away.

---

Not true.
There is a benefit to having a stable Middle East.

Not my responsibility. If you want to pay extra in taxes to take on this responsibility, you should be taxed triple the rate of those who wisely choose to opt-out.

There is a benefit to keeping the shipping lanes open in the Red Sea to the Suez Canal.

No. We should be energy independent in this country and not reliant on the middle east, but certain countries like Israel and Saudi do everything in their power to make America energy dependent on the middle east.

There is benefit to the USA to have a reliable ally in that area of the world.

Ally implies a symbiotic, beneficial relationship. We benefit Israel greatly, they give back nothing. Not once in my life have I ever directly benefitted from all the billions of billions we have sent to out greatest ally... meanwhile the added inflation from those billions has had negative impact on my quality of life.

Do you remember the 9/11 attack? The USA had to respond to that attack, and we had to deal with the Middle Eastern countries, The USA cannot just ignore the terrorist threat coming from that area of the world

9/11 was provoked bcs of US support for Israel. If we stopped engaging in the middle east the terrorist threat would diminish.

---

---

So, I guess we just don't trade in that area of the world. While we are at it, cross off the Horn of Africa, South China Sea, Red Sea, Arctic Ocean, and Space in General. That is a quick list of the contested areas. So, who are we going to sell our good to if we don't keep those areas open? We are going to just punt on those other products coming into the US.

It better be our responsibility, because otherwise you are relying on others to keep our economy going. China now has enough killer satellites that if we didn't counter, they would own space.

But none of that is worth you tax dollars. This is not new, this has gone back as far as the Barbary Pirates, when we literally paid tribute.

---

If companies want to sell their goods there, they can absorb the risks and benefits associated with that, see the East India Company. The tax payer shouldnt be exploited for the economic gain of a few hundred people.

---

Few hundred? How many Toyota's, Honda's, and other imports you see? Apple has a few hundred shareholders?

Welcome to Capitalism.

---

For most people in this country a rising stockmarket just means you are just keeping up with inflation without any real gain in wealth.

Deflating our currency would have have a more beneficial impact on your average tax payer.

---

How are we going to devalue our currency when we print money like a bunch of drunks. fat boy and Biden are both guilty.

---

You answered your own question: Printing money devalues ard currency. That's what inflation does. It's a hidden tax that hurts the poorest the worst. So naturally the fascists support it. Fascism is a form of socialism.

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

historian said:

---

It depends CB on which faction of the GOP you are talking about. Just like now, there were different groups with different priorities. Granted, the isolationists were very much in the minority after WWII but the had some important leaders in Congress.

---

I think it's pretty reasonable to tell American Jews and Israel they can kill as many people as they want with their own money and resources, but Legacy Americans who come from the families who built the United States dont want our tax dollars being stolen/misappropriated and used to bribe our own representatives to pass legislation that put a foreign nation over our own interests.

The only countries I would entertain limited foreign aid to is Mexico and some Central Americans countries to enforce law and order in their own countries and limit the invasion of our southern border.

There is zero benefit to middle America from bombing Yeman half the world away.

---

Not true.
There is a benefit to having a stable Middle East.

Not my responsibility. If you want to pay extra in taxes to take on this responsibility, you should be taxed triple the rate of those who wisely choose to opt-out.

There is a benefit to keeping the shipping lanes open in the Red Sea to the Suez Canal.

No. We should be energy independent in this country and not reliant on the middle east, but certain countries like Israel and Saudi do everything in their power to make America energy dependent on the middle east.

There is benefit to the USA to have a reliable ally in that area of the world.

Ally implies a symbiotic, beneficial relationship. We benefit Israel greatly, they give back nothing. Not once in my life have I ever directly benefitted from all the billions of billions we have sent to out greatest ally... meanwhile the added inflation from those billions has had negative impact on my quality of life.

Do you remember the 9/11 attack? The USA had to respond to that attack, and we had to deal with the Middle Eastern countries, The USA cannot just ignore the terrorist threat coming from that area of the world

9/11 was provoked bcs of US support for Israel. If we stopped engaging in the middle east the terrorist threat would diminish.

---

---

So, I guess we just don't trade in that area of the world. While we are at it, cross off the Horn of Africa, South China Sea, Red Sea, Arctic Ocean, and Space in General. That is a quick list of the contested areas. So, who are we going to sell our good to if we don't keep those areas open? We are going to just punt on those other products coming into the US.

It better be our responsibility, because otherwise you are relying on others to keep our economy going. China now has enough killer satellites that if we didn't counter, they would own space.

But none of that is worth you tax dollars. This is not new, this has gone back as far as the Barbary Pirates, when we literally paid tribute.

---

If companies want to sell their goods there, they can absorb the risks and benefits associated with that, see the East India Company. The tax payer shouldnt be exploited for the economic gain of a few hundred people.

---

Few hundred? How many Toyota's, Honda's, and other imports you see? Apple has a few hundred shareholders?

Welcome to Capitalism. The Royal Navy fought off the Pirates and kept the Sea Lanes open. The British Army held the territory that the EIC operated. You really think that we can supply all our energy needs without imports? Why would we want to use all our resources? Funny, you seem to want a modern lifestyle in a Nation that allows you to make as much money as you can, but at no cost. There was never a Society like the US that just grew with no external costs.

---

Yes we absolutely can supply all of our energy from North America + building more nuclear power plants.

Why would we want to use our own resources?

Umm... so that we arent slaves to foreign powers.

And a modern lifestyle? lol this county sucks now. I would happily trade a 2024 lifestyle for a 1920ties lifestyle.

---

You definitely could benefit from not having the Internet. Wow…

---

This will shock you but they actually built the Hoover Dam, Mount Rushmore, and Golden Gate Bridge without wifi!

---

Almost every accomplishment in human history was without Wi-Fi or the internet.

There are no threads about Saudi Arabia or NATO because they are not at war now and did not endure a horrific terror attacking in October 7. What is happening in the Middle East today is for a reason and Israel was the victim not the perpetrator.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

You're going to have to deal with these facts:

We did not provoke this war.

---

It has been thoroughly explained to the Russia! Russia! Russia! crowd how we did in fact provoke this war.
LOL. The problem with listening to your own propaganda is that you might start to believe it. And you definitely have. In fairness, you are not alone in that.

Quote:

---

Ukraine is willing to fight to the last man to win it.

---

Barring an open attack by NATO militaries on the Russians, they aren't going to win it. That fact has already been decided on the battlefield...and if our military establishment is foolish enough to go down that road, the nukes fly and we all lose.
Russia is not going to nuke Nato over Ukraine, no matter how badly you want them to do so.

As far as fighting to the last man, Ukraine will have that opportunity as long as they persist in this insanity.

---

When did you fall in love with Russia?
Why is an autocratic regime 1/10th the size of Nato entitled to have anything it wants?
Why does NATO have to tiptoe around Russia, rather than the other way around?
We have nukes, too, right? Does not Russia have any imperative to worry about what we will do with nukes?

Here's an idea. Why don't we make the Black Sea a demilitarized zone. NO warships allowed. Fair proposal? That would render Russian basing requirements in the Crimea irrelevant, would it not?

---

A long list of respected foreign policy thinkers opposed NATO expansion. Most people understood that they weren't in love with Russia. They were simply realists who understood the chaos that would result. But that was the 1990s, before neocon/neolib groupthink completely took over the mainstream parties. Fortunately there are some signs that conservatism is making a comeback with the younger generations.

---

that is true. the Cold War lions tended to almost uniformly advise against it. Yet, Nato chose to do it. EVERY MEMBER STATE chose to do it. Because it made sense. It made Nato stronger, and it posed no threat to Russia. We did not permanently station combat units in the former WP nations (just to allay Russian concerns). All we did was use membership as a "don't invade here" marker, not to actually project power to threaten Russia.

That Russia squealed about that as an attack on Russian sovereignty actually proves that the expansion was necessary. It would be madness to let the nation that lost the Cold War have the entirety of Eastern Europe back without any opposition whatsoever.

Russia does not "own" anything beyond its own borders. If they'll learn how to get along with neighbors rather than bully them around, they'll find their neighbors will have a lot less interest in joining Nato.

Ukraine is fighting a just war.
Russia is not.
Fact.

---

Pure BS.

---

Pure fact.

Tell us what part of Just War theory justifies Russia invading Ukraine.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

You're going to have to deal with these facts:

We did not provoke this war.

---

It has been thoroughly explained to the Russia! Russia! Russia! crowd how we did in fact provoke this war.
LOL. The problem with listening to your own propaganda is that you might start to believe it. And you definitely have. In fairness, you are not alone in that.

Quote:

---

Ukraine is willing to fight to the last man to win it.

---

Barring an open attack by NATO militaries on the Russians, they aren't going to win it. That fact has already been decided on the battlefield...and if our military establishment is foolish enough to go down that road, the nukes fly and we all lose.
Russia is not going to nuke Nato over Ukraine, no matter how badly you want them to do so.

As far as fighting to the last man, Ukraine will have that opportunity as long as they persist in this insanity.

---

When did you fall in love with Russia?
Why is an autocratic regime 1/10th the size of Nato entitled to have anything it wants?
Why does NATO have to tiptoe around Russia, rather than the other way around?
We have nukes, too, right? Does not Russia have any imperative to worry about what we will do with nukes?

Here's an idea. Why don't we make the Black Sea a demilitarized zone. NO warships allowed. Fair proposal? That would render Russian basing requirements in the Crimea irrelevant, would it not?

---

A long list of respected foreign policy thinkers opposed NATO expansion. Most people understood that they weren't in love with Russia. They were simply realists who understood the chaos that would result. But that was the 1990s, before neocon/neolib groupthink completely took over the mainstream parties. Fortunately there are some signs that conservatism is making a comeback with the younger generations.

---

that is true. the Cold War lions tended to almost uniformly advise against it. Yet, Nato chose to do it. EVERY MEMBER STATE chose to do it. Because it made sense. It made Nato stronger, and it posed no threat to Russia. We did not permanently station combat units in the former WP nations (just to allay Russian concerns). All we did was use membership as a "don't invade here" marker, not to actually project power to threaten Russia.

That Russia squealed about that as an attack on Russian sovereignty actually proves that the expansion was necessary. It would be madness to let the nation that lost the Cold War have the entirety of Eastern Europe back without any opposition whatsoever.

Russia does not "own" anything beyond its own borders. If they'll learn how to get along with neighbors rather than bully them around, they'll find their neighbors will have a lot less interest in joining Nato.

Ukraine is fighting a just war.
Russia is not.
Fact.

---

Pure BS.

---

Pure fact.

Tell us what part of Just War theory justifies Russia invading Ukraine.

---

Being invaded traditionally gives the defender the moral high ground, except here with Ukraine. It sure did with Sadaam! Even though there was a suspicion of WMDs and whatever Chem/Bio weapons he concocted, the US is the villian. Sam, you espouse that louder than anyone. But Putin is now just to invade?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

NATO was created in 1949, not 1945.

---

Yes, but what happened between 1945 and 1949 was instrumental in its creation and the GOP was right there as Eisenhower was all for its creation and saw a need. Point being to say anti-Expansion is a GOP policy tenant is not accurate. The GOP has been in favor or NATO since before its creation. Eisenhower agreed it was needed, played a central role in setting it up and the US had to be central to it. Not a ask and will the US come in like in WW2...

I am sick of "Conservatives" claiming that the GOP has always been against NATO expansion and if you are you are a Liberal or a NeoCon.

52- Greece & Turkey- Eisenhower
55- W Germany - Eisenhower
82- Spain - Reagan
04- Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia - Bush
17- Montenegro- Trump
20 - N Macedonia - Trump

---

1. You're using "creation" and "expansion" interchangeably when they are two different things.

2. We are obviously talking about post-Cold War expansion, not the 1950s.

---

No, I only listed ADDITIONS since 1949, which is pretty much expansion. NATO has expanded numerous times under both Conservative and Liberal Administrations. To say "Conservatives Philosophy" is to not expand is not true as several of our most Conservative Presidents expanded NATO.

I am looking forward to the explanation how adding more Nations and more square miles is somehow not an expansion.

Let's face it, you don't agree with NATO expanding. You don't agree with spending money in NATO. Whether or not those you (and others) want to see NATO expanded has nothing to do with "Conservatism" it is your personal opinion.

---

3. Now you're equating conservatives and Republicans, which is another error. Like it or not, NATO expansion is a neoconservative policy.

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

There is no question that NATO has had real value for most of its existence, especially in the early years. However, more recently there have been reasons for doubt. For example, in the 1990s it was largely worthless dealing with the chaos in the former Yugoslavia until the U.S. provided leadership. And that was the Clinton years when we didn't have much in the way of positive leadership.

Today, there are plenty of reasons to question its effectiveness and its dependence on the US. Europe is perfectly capable of defending themselves and Russia is not nearly as much of a threat as the Soviet Union was. In fact, it seems most of the problems Europe faces are those they created gif themselves. Ironically perhaps, those problems ard what American Leftists want for the US despite the glaring examples of failures in Europe & elsewhere.

---

I think you should read a bit on Russia's capabilities and what the UKs military believe is coming. Three years, they believe if not rearmed UK and NATO will be in a WW2 situation. But, conveniently you guys don't believe any of the assessments because they are all NEOCONs with a plot to rule the world, right. Funny, any data you guys throw out is gold, no matter how far fetched, and anything that goes contrary is the Deep State Military Industrial Complex.

I do not know how ANYONE can look around the world at China, Russia, N Korea, and Iran and say "Yeah, we don't need foreign alliances, forget NATO, USANZ, Rio, Japan, Israel and Korea. They are not worth it.". Short sighted and strategic niaivity. But you guys want to go back to 1890 foreign policy, foolish.

---

yep. British MOD? neocons. French MOD? neocons. German MOD? neocons. Swedish MOD? neocons. Finnish MOD? neocons. etc...... Anyone who wants to stop Russia from invading the largest country in Europe is a neocon. It is necessary for them to be neocons, to demonize them as neocons, in order to avoid sober discuss of the the geopolitical consequences of allowing Russia to subsume Ukraine back into Russian polity.

Swedish MinDef has made public speeches telling the Swedish people to get ready for war. That's not because Sweden is going to invade Russia. It's because Sweden knows the history and can see that Russia is doing......that Russia is back in expansion mode again.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67935464

it's kinda rare for an authoritarian regime to self-limit when it starts march its armies thru other peoples' lands. Usually, someone (an army) or something like a typhoon (Chinese invasion of Japan), brutal winter (Napoleon's invasion of Russia), domestic political upheavals (death of Ogedai Khan), etc....) has to stop them. EX: Mongol forces won the battle of Legnica, near the Polish/German border and were preparing to push on into Germany, but turned back when Ogedai Khan died. Batu Khan returned to Mogolia to in order to present his case for being the next Great Khan. It proved to be the high water mark of Mongol threats to western Europe.
SOMETHING has to stop an expansionist power.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

NATO was created in 1949, not 1945.

---

Yes, but what happened between 1945 and 1949 was instrumental in its creation and the GOP was right there as Eisenhower was all for its creation and saw a need. Point being to say anti-Expansion is a GOP policy tenant is not accurate. The GOP has been in favor or NATO since before its creation. Eisenhower agreed it was needed, played a central role in setting it up and the US had to be central to it. Not a ask and will the US come in like in WW2...

I am sick of "Conservatives" claiming that the GOP has always been against NATO expansion and if you are you are a Liberal or a NeoCon.

52- Greece & Turkey- Eisenhower
55- W Germany - Eisenhower
82- Spain - Reagan
04- Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia - Bush
17- Montenegro- Trump
20 - N Macedonia - Trump

---

1. You're using "creation" and "expansion" interchangeably when they are two different things.

2. We are obviously talking about post-Cold War expansion, not the 1950s.

---

No, I only listed ADDITIONS since 1949, which is pretty much expansion. NATO has expanded numerous times under both Conservative and Liberal Administrations. To say "Conservatives Philosophy" is to not expand is not true as several of our most Conservative Presidents expanded NATO.

I am looking forward to the explanation how adding more Nations and more square miles is somehow not an expansion.

Let's face it, you don't agree with NATO expanding. You don't agree with spending money in NATO. Whether or not those you (and others) want to see NATO expanded has nothing to do with "Conservatism" it is your personal opinion.

---

3. Now you're equating conservatives and Republicans, which is another error. Like it or not, NATO expansion is a neoconservative policy.

---

NATO expansion has been supported by Conservatives and Liberals, it is NOT a political philosophy tenant. There are varying positions with all groups. You say NeoConservative like it is Party, it is not. It is a label that people like you place on people. No one calls themself a NeoCon. Hell, George Bush doesn't consider himself a NeoCon. A bunch of Liberals got together and created the label. It is a childish way to label people rather than discuss policy issues.

Harris: “Yesterday, at Union Station in Washington, D.C. we saw despicable acts by unpatriotic protestors and dangerous hate-fueled rhetoric.” pic.twitter.com/nak8HRtDem

— Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) July 25, 2024

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

NATO was created in 1949, not 1945.

---

Yes, but what happened between 1945 and 1949 was instrumental in its creation and the GOP was right there as Eisenhower was all for its creation and saw a need. Point being to say anti-Expansion is a GOP policy tenant is not accurate. The GOP has been in favor or NATO since before its creation. Eisenhower agreed it was needed, played a central role in setting it up and the US had to be central to it. Not a ask and will the US come in like in WW2...

I am sick of "Conservatives" claiming that the GOP has always been against NATO expansion and if you are you are a Liberal or a NeoCon.

52- Greece & Turkey- Eisenhower
55- W Germany - Eisenhower
82- Spain - Reagan
04- Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia - Bush
17- Montenegro- Trump
20 - N Macedonia - Trump

---

1. You're using "creation" and "expansion" interchangeably when they are two different things.

2. We are obviously talking about post-Cold War expansion, not the 1950s.

---

No, I only listed ADDITIONS since 1949, which is pretty much expansion. NATO has expanded numerous times under both Conservative and Liberal Administrations. To say "Conservatives Philosophy" is to not expand is not true as several of our most Conservative Presidents expanded NATO.

I am looking forward to the explanation how adding more Nations and more square miles is somehow not an expansion.

Let's face it, you don't agree with NATO expanding. You don't agree with spending money in NATO. Whether or not those you (and others) want to see NATO expanded has nothing to do with "Conservatism" it is your personal opinion.

---

3. Now you're equating conservatives and Republicans, which is another error. Like it or not, NATO expansion is a neoconservative policy.

---

NATO expansion has been supported by Conservatives and Liberals, it is NOT a political philosophy tenant. There are varying positions with all groups. You say NeoConservative like it is Party, it is not. It is a label that people like you place on people. No one calls themself a NeoCon. Hell, George Bush doesn't consider himself a NeoCon. A bunch of Liberals got together and created the label. It is a childish way to label people rather than discuss policy issues.

---

neocons are a very small group of people......

FLBear5630 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

historian said:

---

It depends CB on which faction of the GOP you are talking about. Just like now, there were different groups with different priorities. Granted, the isolationists were very much in the minority after WWII but the had some important leaders in Congress.

---

I think it's pretty reasonable to tell American Jews and Israel they can kill as many people as they want with their own money and resources, but Legacy Americans who come from the families who built the United States dont want our tax dollars being stolen/misappropriated and used to bribe our own representatives to pass legislation that put a foreign nation over our own interests.

The only countries I would entertain limited foreign aid to is Mexico and some Central Americans countries to enforce law and order in their own countries and limit the invasion of our southern border.

There is zero benefit to middle America from bombing Yeman half the world away.

---

Not true.
There is a benefit to having a stable Middle East.

Not my responsibility. If you want to pay extra in taxes to take on this responsibility, you should be taxed triple the rate of those who wisely choose to opt-out.

There is a benefit to keeping the shipping lanes open in the Red Sea to the Suez Canal.

No. We should be energy independent in this country and not reliant on the middle east, but certain countries like Israel and Saudi do everything in their power to make America energy dependent on the middle east.

There is benefit to the USA to have a reliable ally in that area of the world.

Ally implies a symbiotic, beneficial relationship. We benefit Israel greatly, they give back nothing. Not once in my life have I ever directly benefitted from all the billions of billions we have sent to out greatest ally... meanwhile the added inflation from those billions has had negative impact on my quality of life.

Do you remember the 9/11 attack? The USA had to respond to that attack, and we had to deal with the Middle Eastern countries, The USA cannot just ignore the terrorist threat coming from that area of the world

9/11 was provoked bcs of US support for Israel. If we stopped engaging in the middle east the terrorist threat would diminish.

---

---

So, I guess we just don't trade in that area of the world. While we are at it, cross off the Horn of Africa, South China Sea, Red Sea, Arctic Ocean, and Space in General. That is a quick list of the contested areas. So, who are we going to sell our good to if we don't keep those areas open? We are going to just punt on those other products coming into the US.

It better be our responsibility, because otherwise you are relying on others to keep our economy going. China now has enough killer satellites that if we didn't counter, they would own space.

But none of that is worth you tax dollars. This is not new, this has gone back as far as the Barbary Pirates, when we literally paid tribute.

---

If companies want to sell their goods there, they can absorb the risks and benefits associated with that, see the East India Company. The tax payer shouldnt be exploited for the economic gain of a few hundred people.

---

The British Army held the territory that the EIC operated.

---

Not really. The EIC had its own army (of mostly Indian troops) and usually underwrote British Army operations with private funds when it needed assistance.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

NATO was created in 1949, not 1945.

---

Yes, but what happened between 1945 and 1949 was instrumental in its creation and the GOP was right there as Eisenhower was all for its creation and saw a need. Point being to say anti-Expansion is a GOP policy tenant is not accurate. The GOP has been in favor or NATO since before its creation. Eisenhower agreed it was needed, played a central role in setting it up and the US had to be central to it. Not a ask and will the US come in like in WW2...

I am sick of "Conservatives" claiming that the GOP has always been against NATO expansion and if you are you are a Liberal or a NeoCon.

52- Greece & Turkey- Eisenhower
55- W Germany - Eisenhower
82- Spain - Reagan
04- Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia - Bush
17- Montenegro- Trump
20 - N Macedonia - Trump

---

1. You're using "creation" and "expansion" interchangeably when they are two different things.

2. We are obviously talking about post-Cold War expansion, not the 1950s.

---

No, I only listed ADDITIONS since 1949, which is pretty much expansion. NATO has expanded numerous times under both Conservative and Liberal Administrations. To say "Conservatives Philosophy" is to not expand is not true as several of our most Conservative Presidents expanded NATO.

I am looking forward to the explanation how adding more Nations and more square miles is somehow not an expansion.

Let's face it, you don't agree with NATO expanding. You don't agree with spending money in NATO. Whether or not those you (and others) want to see NATO expanded has nothing to do with "Conservatism" it is your personal opinion.

---

3. Now you're equating conservatives and Republicans, which is another error. Like it or not, NATO expansion is a neoconservative policy.

---

NATO expansion has been supported by Conservatives and Liberals, it is NOT a political philosophy tenant. There are varying positions with all groups. You say NeoConservative like it is Party, it is not. It is a label that people like you place on people. No one calls themself a NeoCon. Hell, George Bush doesn't consider himself a NeoCon. A bunch of Liberals got together and created the label. It is a childish way to label people rather than discuss policy issues.

---

The terminology is irrelevant. The point is that there's both a philosophical distinction and a historical division between the realist foreign policy of Reagan/Bush 41 and whatever it is that you want to call what you believe. You can call it Beatlemania for all I care, but it's not Reaganism.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

There is no question that NATO has had real value for most of its existence, especially in the early years. However, more recently there have been reasons for doubt. For example, in the 1990s it was largely worthless dealing with the chaos in the former Yugoslavia until the U.S. provided leadership. And that was the Clinton years when we didn't have much in the way of positive leadership.

Today, there are plenty of reasons to question its effectiveness and its dependence on the US. Europe is perfectly capable of defending themselves and Russia is not nearly as much of a threat as the Soviet Union was. In fact, it seems most of the problems Europe faces are those they created gif themselves. Ironically perhaps, those problems ard what American Leftists want for the US despite the glaring examples of failures in Europe & elsewhere.

---

I think you should read a bit on Russia's capabilities and what the UKs military believe is coming. Three years, they believe if not rearmed UK and NATO will be in a WW2 situation. But, conveniently you guys don't believe any of the assessments because they are all NEOCONs with a plot to rule the world, right. Funny, any data you guys throw out is gold, no matter how far fetched, and anything that goes contrary is the Deep State Military Industrial Complex.

I do not know how ANYONE can look around the world at China, Russia, N Korea, and Iran and say "Yeah, we don't need foreign alliances, forget NATO, USANZ, Rio, Japan, Israel and Korea. They are not worth it.". Short sighted and strategic niaivity. But you guys want to go back to 1890 foreign policy, foolish.

---

yep. British MOD? neocons. French MOD? neocons. German MOD? neocons. Swedish MOD? neocons. Finnish MOD? neocons. etc...... Anyone who wants to stop Russia from invading the largest country in Europe is a neocon. It is necessary for them to be neocons, to demonize them as neocons, in order to avoid sober discuss of the the geopolitical consequences of allowing Russia to subsume Ukraine back into Russian polity.

Swedish MinDef has made public speeches telling the Swedish people to get ready for war. That's not because Sweden is going to invade Russia. It's because Sweden knows the history and can see that Russia is doing......that Russia is back in expansion mode again.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67935464

it's kinda rare for an authoritarian regime to self-limit when it starts march its armies thru other peoples' lands. Usually, someone (an army) or something like a typhoon (Chinese invasion of Japan), brutal winter (Napoleon's invasion of Russia), domestic political upheavals (death of Ogedai Khan), etc....) has to stop them. EX: Mongol forces won the battle of Legnica, near the Polish/German border and were preparing to push on into Germany, but turned back when Ogedai Khan died. Batu Khan returned to Mogolia to in order to present his case for being the next Great Khan. It proved to be the high water mark of Mongol threats to western Europe.
SOMETHING has to stop an expansionist power.

---

George Kennan predicted this false narrative back in 1998: "I think it is the beginning of new cold war. Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say we always told you that is how the Russians are--but this is just wrong."

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

There is no question that NATO has had real value for most of its existence, especially in the early years. However, more recently there have been reasons for doubt. For example, in the 1990s it was largely worthless dealing with the chaos in the former Yugoslavia until the U.S. provided leadership. And that was the Clinton years when we didn't have much in the way of positive leadership.

Today, there are plenty of reasons to question its effectiveness and its dependence on the US. Europe is perfectly capable of defending themselves and Russia is not nearly as much of a threat as the Soviet Union was. In fact, it seems most of the problems Europe faces are those they created gif themselves. Ironically perhaps, those problems ard what American Leftists want for the US despite the glaring examples of failures in Europe & elsewhere.

---

I think you should read a bit on Russia's capabilities and what the UKs military believe is coming. Three years, they believe if not rearmed UK and NATO will be in a WW2 situation. But, conveniently you guys don't believe any of the assessments because they are all NEOCONs with a plot to rule the world, right. Funny, any data you guys throw out is gold, no matter how far fetched, and anything that goes contrary is the Deep State Military Industrial Complex.

I do not know how ANYONE can look around the world at China, Russia, N Korea, and Iran and say "Yeah, we don't need foreign alliances, forget NATO, USANZ, Rio, Japan, Israel and Korea. They are not worth it.". Short sighted and strategic niaivity. But you guys want to go back to 1890 foreign policy, foolish.

---

Don't put words into my mouth. I'm not an isolationist and I never said such things. I am not calling for the end of NATO only for it to be revamped and for our European partners to play their proper role & pay their share. It probably needs a major overhaul to deal with modern realities.

I do not believe that we are on the verge of another world war or that Russia is it a big of a threat as you seem to think. However we should prepare for such a threat just in case. Peace through strength.

All of these issues and all of the chaos across the world just pointed to the glaring problem of American weakness. America needs strong leadership and we need to provide leader ship internationally but we're not gonna get any of that from the fascist because they can't even deal with reality. Their Marxism, neopaganism, & globalist megalomania all point in crazy directions and lead to insane policies.

When did China invade Japan? Prior to World War II, Japan have never been conquered to my knowledge.

Sure do you mean the opposite in the 1930s.

historian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

There is no question that NATO has had real value for most of its existence, especially in the early years. However, more recently there have been reasons for doubt. For example, in the 1990s it was largely worthless dealing with the chaos in the former Yugoslavia until the U.S. provided leadership. And that was the Clinton years when we didn't have much in the way of positive leadership.

Today, there are plenty of reasons to question its effectiveness and its dependence on the US. Europe is perfectly capable of defending themselves and Russia is not nearly as much of a threat as the Soviet Union was. In fact, it seems most of the problems Europe faces are those they created gif themselves. Ironically perhaps, those problems ard what American Leftists want for the US despite the glaring examples of failures in Europe & elsewhere.

---

I think you should read a bit on Russia's capabilities and what the UKs military believe is coming. Three years, they believe if not rearmed UK and NATO will be in a WW2 situation. But, conveniently you guys don't believe any of the assessments because they are all NEOCONs with a plot to rule the world, right. Funny, any data you guys throw out is gold, no matter how far fetched, and anything that goes contrary is the Deep State Military Industrial Complex.

I do not know how ANYONE can look around the world at China, Russia, N Korea, and Iran and say "Yeah, we don't need foreign alliances, forget NATO, USANZ, Rio, Japan, Israel and Korea. They are not worth it.". Short sighted and strategic niaivity. But you guys want to go back to 1890 foreign policy, foolish.

---

Don't put words into my mouth. I'm not an isolationist and I never said such things. I am not calling for the end of NATO only for it to be revamped and for our European partners to play their proper role & pay their share. It probably needs a major overhaul to deal with modern realities.

I do not believe that we are on the verge of another world war or that Russia is it a big of a threat as you seem to think. However we should prepare for such a threat just in case. Peace through strength.

All of these issues and all of the chaos across the world just pointed to the glaring problem of American weakness. America needs strong leadership and we need to provide leader ship internationally but we're not gonna get any of that from the fascist because they can't even deal with reality. Their Marxism, neopaganism, & globalist megalomania all point in crazy directions and lead to insane policies.

---

I actually agree with you on the time to restructure NATO and our agreements. I have no problem requiring Europe to pay more. I would like to see NATO be in the Pacific too, balance the dialogue.

I do not believe Ukraine is seeing the full Russian onslaught. Actually, I think Putin is using Ukraine as practice and gearing up. He and Xi have a plan and that is what scares me. When your opposition is testing you and gearing up, reducing commitments does not send the right message.

I agree with all of this.

History lesson: The original neocon politically was Richard Nixon and had much to do with domestic policy although he was thoroughly anti-Communist.

historian said:

---

I agree with all of this.

History lesson: The original neocon politically was Richard Nixon and had much to do with domestic policy although he was thoroughly anti-Communist.

---

The original neocon was Woodrow Wilson.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

NATO was created in 1949, not 1945.

---

Yes, but what happened between 1945 and 1949 was instrumental in its creation and the GOP was right there as Eisenhower was all for its creation and saw a need. Point being to say anti-Expansion is a GOP policy tenant is not accurate. The GOP has been in favor or NATO since before its creation. Eisenhower agreed it was needed, played a central role in setting it up and the US had to be central to it. Not a ask and will the US come in like in WW2...

I am sick of "Conservatives" claiming that the GOP has always been against NATO expansion and if you are you are a Liberal or a NeoCon.

52- Greece & Turkey- Eisenhower
55- W Germany - Eisenhower
82- Spain - Reagan
04- Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia - Bush
17- Montenegro- Trump
20 - N Macedonia - Trump

---

1. You're using "creation" and "expansion" interchangeably when they are two different things.

2. We are obviously talking about post-Cold War expansion, not the 1950s.

---

No, I only listed ADDITIONS since 1949, which is pretty much expansion. NATO has expanded numerous times under both Conservative and Liberal Administrations. To say "Conservatives Philosophy" is to not expand is not true as several of our most Conservative Presidents expanded NATO.

I am looking forward to the explanation how adding more Nations and more square miles is somehow not an expansion.

Let's face it, you don't agree with NATO expanding. You don't agree with spending money in NATO. Whether or not those you (and others) want to see NATO expanded has nothing to do with "Conservatism" it is your personal opinion.

---

3. Now you're equating conservatives and Republicans, which is another error. Like it or not, NATO expansion is a neoconservative policy.

---

NATO expansion has been supported by Conservatives and Liberals, it is NOT a political philosophy tenant. There are varying positions with all groups. You say NeoConservative like it is Party, it is not. It is a label that people like you place on people. No one calls themself a NeoCon. Hell, George Bush doesn't consider himself a NeoCon. A bunch of Liberals got together and created the label. It is a childish way to label people rather than discuss policy issues.

---

The terminology is irrelevant. The point is that there's both a philosophical distinction and a historical division between the realist foreign policy of Reagan/Bush 41 and whatever it is that you want to call what you believe. You can call it Beatlemania for all I care, but it's not Reaganism.

---

This is where you go off the rails. Reagan and Bush 41 both supported NATO. They both supported assisting Nations trying to be free. Bush was the best example of "Reagan Foreign Policy" in the Gulf War. We went and helped a Nation invaded, threw out Iraq and set up a mechanism for Saudi and Kuwait to go forward. That is Reaganism, which is not far off Ukraine. NOBODY but you is claiming that the US is setting up a puppet Govt forcing American ideals on Ukraine. Ukraine WANTS to join the EU. You are way off base on this one...

---

No one is saying they didn't support NATO. I'm saying they didn't support NATO expansion into former Soviet or Warsaw Pact territories. Understand?

Reagan considered it his mission to end the Cold War. The last thing he wanted to do was turn around and start another one. Bush 41 assured Gorbachev that we wouldn't take advantage if Eastern Europe was allowed to choose its own leadership. Eisenhower was long gone, but since you brought him up recently, here's what his granddaughter Susan Eisenhower had to say (comparing NATO expansion to the sinking of the Titanic): "Like the captain of that ill-fated liner, Clinton has been warned that icebergs are everywhere, but he is steaming full speed ahead, ignoring what may lie beneath the surface, insisting that our vessel is indestructible, unsinkable."

We don't just act reflexively whenever a so-called ally is in trouble. Why didn't we act when Russia rolled tanks into Czechoslovakia in 1968? Or when Poland declared martial law in 1981? Because we understood that the US had different degrees of interest in Europe, with the strongest interest being in the West. There's a reason it's called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- not the Black Sea Treaty Organization or the Baltic Treaty Organization.

Now it's been reported that Zelensky wants a new peace summit, with Russia invited to participate and with territorial concessions on the table. Do we go along with that just because Ukraine says so? I think you know the answer.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

NATO was created in 1949, not 1945.

---

Yes, but what happened between 1945 and 1949 was instrumental in its creation and the GOP was right there as Eisenhower was all for its creation and saw a need. Point being to say anti-Expansion is a GOP policy tenant is not accurate. The GOP has been in favor or NATO since before its creation. Eisenhower agreed it was needed, played a central role in setting it up and the US had to be central to it. Not a ask and will the US come in like in WW2...

I am sick of "Conservatives" claiming that the GOP has always been against NATO expansion and if you are you are a Liberal or a NeoCon.

52- Greece & Turkey- Eisenhower
55- W Germany - Eisenhower
82- Spain - Reagan
04- Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia - Bush
17- Montenegro- Trump
20 - N Macedonia - Trump

---

1. You're using "creation" and "expansion" interchangeably when they are two different things.

2. We are obviously talking about post-Cold War expansion, not the 1950s.

---

No, I only listed ADDITIONS since 1949, which is pretty much expansion. NATO has expanded numerous times under both Conservative and Liberal Administrations. To say "Conservatives Philosophy" is to not expand is not true as several of our most Conservative Presidents expanded NATO.

I am looking forward to the explanation how adding more Nations and more square miles is somehow not an expansion.

Let's face it, you don't agree with NATO expanding. You don't agree with spending money in NATO. Whether or not those you (and others) want to see NATO expanded has nothing to do with "Conservatism" it is your personal opinion.

---

3. Now you're equating conservatives and Republicans, which is another error. Like it or not, NATO expansion is a neoconservative policy.

---

NATO expansion has been supported by Conservatives and Liberals, it is NOT a political philosophy tenant. There are varying positions with all groups. You say NeoConservative like it is Party, it is not. It is a label that people like you place on people. No one calls themself a NeoCon. Hell, George Bush doesn't consider himself a NeoCon. A bunch of Liberals got together and created the label. It is a childish way to label people rather than discuss policy issues.

---

The terminology is irrelevant. The point is that there's both a philosophical distinction and a historical division between the realist foreign policy of Reagan/Bush 41 and whatever it is that you want to call what you believe. You can call it Beatlemania for all I care, but it's not Reaganism.

---

This is where you go off the rails. Reagan and Bush 41 both supported NATO. They both supported assisting Nations trying to be free. Bush was the best example of "Reagan Foreign Policy" in the Gulf War. We went and helped a Nation invaded, threw out Iraq and set up a mechanism for Saudi and Kuwait to go forward. That is Reaganism, which is not far off Ukraine. NOBODY but you is claiming that the US is setting up a puppet Govt forcing American ideals on Ukraine. Ukraine WANTS to join the EU. You are way off base on this one...

---

No one is saying they didn't support NATO. I'm saying they didn't support NATO expansion into former Soviet or Warsaw Pact territories. Understand?

Reagan considered it his mission to end the Cold War. The last thing he wanted to do was turn around and start another one. Bush 41 assured Gorbachev that we wouldn't take advantage if Eastern Europe was allowed to choose its own leadership. Eisenhower was long gone, but since you brought him up recently, here's what his granddaughter Susan Eisenhower had to say (comparing NATO expansion to the sinking of the Titanic): "Like the captain of that ill-fated liner, Clinton has been warned that icebergs are everywhere, but he is steaming full speed ahead, ignoring what may lie beneath the surface, insisting that our vessel is indestructible, unsinkable."

We don't just act reflexively whenever a so-called ally is in trouble. Why didn't we act when Russia rolled tanks into Czechoslovakia in 1968? Or when Poland declared martial law in 1981? Because we understood that the US had different degrees of interest in Europe, with the strongest interest being in the West. There's a reason it's called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- not the Black Sea Treaty Organization or the Baltic Treaty Organization.

Now it's been reported that Zelensky wants a new peace summit, with Russia invited to participate and with territorial concessions on the table. Do we go along with that just because Ukraine says so? I think you know the answer.

---

Neither Czech or Poland fought back or asked NATO for equipment.

Do we go along? Of course, we go along. The whole point is to support people's freedom. Ukraine asks us to broker a Peace, we do it. They ask for weapons, we provide them.

You seem to think that NATO troops are on the ground fighting Russia, at least you act like it. The US and NATO have done nothing but supply equipment and shared intel. No one is forcing Ukraine to fight, they surrender today the US can't do a thing to stop them. You seem to think the US is pulling the strings and orchestrated this fight. Russia is guilty of that and they will ultimately be rewarded.

Not really. Wilson was the ultimate radical progressive of his day.

Poor examples: Call Tsubaki and pollen we're not our allies those were Soviet satellite states. And after the Polish communists declared martial law the CIA covertly provided aid to keep Solidarity alive as an underground movement. That paid dividends in 1989 and beyond.

Worst play I ever saw. Israeli female soldiers are not that fat.

These people are barbaric savages who burn American flags and they’re also enormous dorks on top of it. The worst of all worlds. Cringy loser thugs.

pic.twitter.com/0Ugv1xVlD9

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) July 25, 2024

Jack Bauer said:

---

Worst play I ever saw. Israeli female soldiers are not that fat.

These people are barbaric savages who burn American flags and they’re also enormous dorks on top of it. The worst of all worlds. Cringy loser thugs.

pic.twitter.com/0Ugv1xVlD9

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) July 25, 2024

---

Matt Walsh is the only one left at the Daily Wire I can stomach. At least he acknowledges we cannot afford to be sending money to foreign countries anymore... especially RICH foreign countries like Israel

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

There is no question that NATO has had real value for most of its existence, especially in the early years. However, more recently there have been reasons for doubt. For example, in the 1990s it was largely worthless dealing with the chaos in the former Yugoslavia until the U.S. provided leadership. And that was the Clinton years when we didn't have much in the way of positive leadership.

Today, there are plenty of reasons to question its effectiveness and its dependence on the US. Europe is perfectly capable of defending themselves and Russia is not nearly as much of a threat as the Soviet Union was. In fact, it seems most of the problems Europe faces are those they created gif themselves. Ironically perhaps, those problems ard what American Leftists want for the US despite the glaring examples of failures in Europe & elsewhere.

---

I think you should read a bit on Russia's capabilities and what the UKs military believe is coming. Three years, they believe if not rearmed UK and NATO will be in a WW2 situation. But, conveniently you guys don't believe any of the assessments because they are all NEOCONs with a plot to rule the world, right. Funny, any data you guys throw out is gold, no matter how far fetched, and anything that goes contrary is the Deep State Military Industrial Complex.

I do not know how ANYONE can look around the world at China, Russia, N Korea, and Iran and say "Yeah, we don't need foreign alliances, forget NATO, USANZ, Rio, Japan, Israel and Korea. They are not worth it.". Short sighted and strategic niaivity. But you guys want to go back to 1890 foreign policy, foolish.

---

yep. British MOD? neocons. French MOD? neocons. German MOD? neocons. Swedish MOD? neocons. Finnish MOD? neocons. etc...... Anyone who wants to stop Russia from invading the largest country in Europe is a neocon. It is necessary for them to be neocons, to demonize them as neocons, in order to avoid sober discuss of the the geopolitical consequences of allowing Russia to subsume Ukraine back into Russian polity.

Swedish MinDef has made public speeches telling the Swedish people to get ready for war. That's not because Sweden is going to invade Russia. It's because Sweden knows the history and can see that Russia is doing......that Russia is back in expansion mode again.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67935464

it's kinda rare for an authoritarian regime to self-limit when it starts march its armies thru other peoples' lands. Usually, someone (an army) or something like a typhoon (Chinese invasion of Japan), brutal winter (Napoleon's invasion of Russia), domestic political upheavals (death of Ogedai Khan), etc....) has to stop them. EX: Mongol forces won the battle of Legnica, near the Polish/German border and were preparing to push on into Germany, but turned back when Ogedai Khan died. Batu Khan returned to Mogolia to in order to present his case for being the next Great Khan. It proved to be the high water mark of Mongol threats to western Europe.
SOMETHING has to stop an expansionist power.

---

George Kennan predicted this false narrative back in 1998: "I think it is the beginning of new cold war. Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say we always told you that is how the Russians are--but this is just wrong."

---

If that's what he thought, then Kennan was foolish for thinking Russia would be content to remain in what it clearly believed to be a diminished state. They have never been content with the footprint they have now, at any point in their history you care to examiine.

historian said:

---

When did China invade Japan? Prior to World War II, Japan have never been conquered to my knowledge.

Sure do you mean the opposite in the 1930s.

---

1274 and 1281. Typhoons wrecked both Mongol invasion fleets. The first was a force of approx. 30k troops. The second one was ca 150k troops. The Japanese called it a "divine wind."

The Japanese word for "divine wind" is......kamikaze.

Breaking: John Kirby confirmed that Iran is funding the protests in the US:

“We do know that Iran has been funding and encouraging some of the protest activity here in the United States.”

pic.twitter.com/TGiWaXtNEf

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) July 25, 2024

Harris: "To everyone who has been calling for a ceasefire, and to everyone who yearns for peace, I see you and I hear you. Let’s get the deal done."

— Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) July 25, 2024

But we're those attacks successful? I don't think so. I must admit my knowledge of Japanese history is primary focused on modern events from the unification on.

boognish_bear said:

---

Harris: "To everyone who has been calling for a ceasefire, and to everyone who yearns for peace, I see you and I hear you. Let’s get the deal done."

— Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) July 25, 2024

---

She is improving on political skills. Supporting jewish vote while appeasing Gaza civilian protectors whom we do not know which ones are Gaza and which ones are innocents.

VP: The war in Gaza is not a binary issue. However, too often the conversation is binary when the reality is anything but. So I ask my fellow Americans to help encourage efforts to acknowledge the complexity, the nuance, and the history of the region. pic.twitter.com/z4Uufh5rHo

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 25, 2024