Pat Buchanan defending Ron Paul

[Boats]

Quoting a corrupt Roman emperor, how fitting.

We could quote Machievelli if you object to Caligula. Terrible guys who happened to right, since their sayings live on.

"Let them hate us as long as they fear us." Great plan there, sparky. It's obvious that years of us killing them hasn't really gotten the message across. How do you get someone who is willing to kill himself in order to take out his enemies to fear you? Obviously, death isn't much of a demotivator there.

First off, where do you get off calling anyone "sparky?" Grab a mirror bub. The fear doesn't necessarily have to be instilled in the individual jihadi, creating that fear in the larger population would suffice. Mothers and fathers fearing that their sons would be killed off meaninglessly will eventually sink in if we don't give up as readily as the defeatist coalition would have us. Death is a certainly a deanimator. Eventually, everyone tires of seeing death around them, especially in 5000:1 or 10000:1 ratios.

But lets keep on killin' em. At least we'll rack up a helluva body count.

Yes, because ignoring them works so well. Peace in your time Neville.

 

[longrifleman]

I want someone informed, so we try not to repeat mistakes,

I completely agree. That is where I see Dr. Paul's analysis being correct. All I see from the annointed front-runners is more of the same foreign meddeling we've had to deal with for most of my life. If we go back to Wilson's "Make the World Safe For Democracy", it's been going on a lot longer than that.

At this point, I see the race pretty much the way it played out the last presidental election: Bush may not be perfect, but he's a lot better that the other guy. Hold your nose and vote the lesser of two evils.

Paul may not be perfect, but he's a lot better that any of the candidates being shoved down our collective throats by the Republican establishment and the elitist media.

 

[TX1911fan]

Derek, I agree philosophically with your point, but in a practical sense I think it is naive. For the past hundred years or so, I don't think the US has gone out looking for trouble to get into. We have not meddled just to meddle. There was always a need seen as urgent at the time, and now we look back at it with hindsight and say "we would have been better off if we hadn't done that" but we absolutely could not have known that at the time. Should we have stayed out of Vietnam? Probably. Should we have stayed out of Korea? Maybe. Should we have stayed out of Germany? They didn't attack us, but what would our situation be if we had decided not to meddle with "Europe's war." While the EU is certainly not a solid friend of the US, united under a fascist Germany, it would definitely be an enemy. It is just too easy to wish for our finger snap and to keep all the good "meddling" and get rid of the bad ones. We do what we can and hope for the best. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't.

 

[antarti]

Actions have consequences. It is often impossible to know what would have happened if the world were different 50 years ago. There's no guarantee that things would be better. Maybe so, maybe not. Water under the bridge.

The President, while trying not to repeat past gross errors, is charged with answering the question "Now what?" when it comes to national security. He's not charged with generating endless "what-ifs" about the now-distant past.

It's not wrong to do that, of course. But that's not the job that the candidates are applying for.

If we look at the consequences though, we might learn something useful in the future. If my history serves, Khomeni was an exile in France, marginalized until fervor against the Shah (whom we put in) made him a cause celebre.

1+1 really does equal 2 sometimes. We elect somebody, somebody else comes in and replaces them with their stooge, we get angry. We look for somebody to lead us that isn't a stooge (some Nationalist likely), regardless of how much/little we agree with them. So they get angry at the overthrow, pay off/arm/give-intel to Mexico to attack us in a decade long war, while sinking half our navy themselves. Seems like we'd hate their guts for a long, long time and lash out whenever possible. We'd probably want nukes too.

 

[antarti]

I don't think the US has gone out looking for trouble to get into. We have not meddled just to meddle. There was always a need seen as urgent at the time

History says otherwise. Let's hope the future doesn't.

 

[ArmedBear]

It's just that it's so rare when I can get someone to agree that "meddling in foreign affairs often suffers from the Law of Unintended Consequences," even if it's just in one instance.

I never denied that.

Now can you admit that the unintended consequences of total isolationism could also be dire?

If we'd admit that, maybe we'd be less willing to meddle nowadays, which might mean less people internationally hate my grandkids than hate me...

I'll tell you what. US meddling in my grandparents' day is the only reason I am alive. "Meddling" has won millions of hearts, too. There's no winning that game, either way.

This whole "they hate us" thing is ridiculous, anyway. "They" have objectives, military and political. Organized terrorism isn't about "hatred". It's about winning a political battle. The footsoldiers might have their heads filled with hate by those who send them out, but the leaders have cold objectives, not hot anger.

It's that oversimplified hindsight foreign policy that is problematic. If we had simply closed the door behind us in 1946, would the world really be a better place? Who would love us more, who would hate us more?

And how, exactly, does that inform our policy regarding Iran and North Korea today?

Did Carter improve our international status more, or did Reagan? Did Carter's policies end the Cold War, or did Reagan's? I'm not talking about whether people "like us." Being "liked" is for junior high school kids. And I'm not saying Reagan was perfect. That's not the point.

The point is this: it's not all so simple, unless you're an academic with books to sell and nothing else on the line.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

don't think the US has gone out looking for trouble to get into. We have not meddled just to meddle. There was always a need seen as urgent at the time, and now we look back at it with hindsight and say "we would have been better off if we hadn't done that" but we absolutely could not have known that at the time

I'm not going to argue this -- in the end we're all just human, and our hearts (or perception of 'national interest') may have always been the the right place.

That doesn't change the fact that 90% of the time (if not greater) it blows up in our face. Doing what we think is "right" now will likely have the same effectiveness as it has in the past, which means we oughta just ignore those 'opportunities.'

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Now can you admit that the unintended consequences of total isolationism could also be dire?

Let me rephrase things a bit. If you're configuring a firewall to protect a network, you (if you know what you're doing) start with a 'default deny' policy -- nothing gets in. You then open holes for traffic you want to see pass, but the general policy is "nothing gets through unless it's necessary."

There are reasons I would agree with war over interventionism -- genocide is one. That doesn't mean that a default stance of "let's mind our own business" is a bad one, and it's a hell of a lot better than what we've been doing through the 20th Century.

 

[TX1911fan]

which means we oughta just ignore those 'opportunities

Which opportunities? WWI? WWII? How about Gulf War I? Would it have been better to just let Saddam Have Kuwait? How about all the other small countries over there? Then Saudi Arabia?

I'm not arguing that we don't need to be more careful, but I think isolationism is not a good policy. Not unless we learn how to fuel our economy with something other than oil, since we don't pump much of it these days. We have to be engaged, and in doing so, we will invariably make some people mad. We can't help that, and we especially can't be sad when we make lunatics upset. Notice that as mad as France gets at us, they don't send suicide bombers over here to attack us. If the leaders of these other countries and/or movements were rational, there'd be no problem, would there?

 

[longrifleman]

Now can you admit that the unintended consequences of total isolationism could also be dire?

Here is where the discussion breaks down. I don't think minding our own business means waiting untill the landing craft are pulling up on Daytona Beach to realise there is a problem and deal with it. Too many folks think anything short of garrisoning the entire world and actually demanding to be the world's policeman is total isolationism. There is a lot of territory in between, but we can't seem to find any of it.

 

[HiroProX]

The problem with Machiavelli, that those who study his work should remember, was that him putting his ideas into practice failed.

Inducing fear is in general a very bad policy as it's the fastest route to inducing anger. Anger is not an emotional state, it is a reaction to fear. And as we're finding out now, it's a policy that does not work in the long run due to its unintended consequences.

 

[Titan6]

The fear doesn't necessarily have to be instilled in the individual jihadi, creating that fear in the larger population would suffice. Mothers and fathers fearing that their sons would be killed off meaninglessly will eventually sink in if we don't give up as readily as the defeatist coalition would have us. Death is a certainly a deanimator. Eventually, everyone tires of seeing death around them, especially in 5000:1 or 10000:1 ratios.

Sure, If we kill enough of them they will know we are their friends and mean them no harm.

 

[.45&TKD]

...we should focus on defense--starting with recalling home our troops currently occupying 130 of the world's 160 nations? They can't defend us if they're so far away from our territory...

Bud, I think that securing our own border is a more important national security issue than invading Iraq. In that sense, we can agree. Although, I think that we could do both, except for the lack of political courage on the part of our leaders. If Bush had pursued border security with the same passion that he pursued Saddam Hussein, the President and Republican party would be in much better shape.

The 2 issues, border security and national/international security are not mutually exclusive.

 

[antarti]

Which opportunities? WWI? WWII? How about Gulf War I? Would it have been better to just let Saddam Have Kuwait? How about all the other small countries over there? Then Saudi Arabia?

I don't have the time to re-type, but I hope the link works. See post #71 by me:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=278062&page=2

 

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by TX1911Fan:
Which opportunities? WWI? WWII? How about Gulf War I? Would it have been better to just let Saddam Have Kuwait? How about all the other small countries over there? Then Saudi Arabia?

Who cares if Iraq takes Kuwait or Saudi Arabia? I will give you there were good reasons for the World Wars but not for the first Gulf War. If its for freedom then why dont we liberate Tibet?

 

[Boats]

Sure, If we kill enough of them they will know we are their friends and mean them no harm.

Worked on the Japanese. They used to be inscrutible, implacable, and undefeatable too.

 

[ArmedBear]

Too many folks think anything short of garrisoning the entire world and actually demanding to be the world's policeman is total isolationism. There is a lot of territory in between, but we can't seem to find any of it.

True enough.

Now I want to hear candidates talk about where in that middle ground we ought to be, and how to do it.

Anyone can say "this was bad", or "that led to this" when they don't have to make a decision today, without benefit of hindsight.

So I want to hear what they all propose to do now. How do they want to strike that balance? Get too gung-ho optimistic like Bush in Iraq? Shrink from any fight like Carter? Play around here and there like Reagan (and then how to decide)? Ignore half of the threats, and use air strikes on the others like Clinton?

Since most of us agree the answer isn't total isolationism and it isn't total military involvement everywhere all the time, then what IS it?

That's one way I can choose between the candidates.

Worked on the Japanese. They used to be inscrutible, implacable, and undefeatable too.

And that, for those who admonish us to learn from history, is also quite true. They were also suicidal, if you remember, just like these undefeatable suicidal Islamist nutballs.

So which lesson do you learn?

 

[Titan6]

Worked on the Japanese. They used to be inscrutible, implacable, and undefeatable too.

So we should nuke Iraq? That should go really well. What could go wrong there?

Or do you propose the Vietnam solution?

Please I wish to know what is inside the heart of a true NEOCON.

 

[TX1911fan]

ArmedBear, you said it better than I have been able to. Just saying that WE created the problem is not enough for me. I need someone to tell me what THEY would do differently. How are they going to know WHEN to get involved, and when to do nothing.

 

[budney]

Worked on the Japanese. They used to be inscrutible, implacable, and undefeatable too.

Their culture is one of abject submission to authority figures. Police enter Japanese homes without warrants whenever they want to, and the people are cool with that. All it took was to make Hirohito submit (which we did), and the rest of the people were sure to follow his lead. It wasn't a matter of cowing the people, it was a matter of cowing the emperor, who controlled the people absolutely.

Similarly, getting Saddam under control would have effectively gotten Iraq under control.

But I wouldn't credit the A-bomb with victory in Japan, though. We had already won. The Japanese were begging to surrender, as long as Hirohito could keep his throne. Truman demanded unconditional surrender, which forced them to keep fighting--and gave him the opportunity to show off for Stalin by vaporizing tens of thousands of Japanese. (No big loss, though. After all, they were just a bunch of little yellow devils anyway.)

--Len.

 

[antarti]

How are they going to know WHEN to get involved, and when to do nothing.

Don't we debate self-defense all day long on this board?

The time to pull out your gun and start shooting is when ________________. Just apply what you're comfortable with to the country at large.

You might try that on a lot of subjects. I'd wager, once you thought it all through, you might not want to actually have to live in the country/world you've been hankering for before trying that exercise.

 

[GTSteve03]

The fear doesn't necessarily have to be instilled in the individual jihadi, creating that fear in the larger population would suffice. Mothers and fathers fearing that their sons would be killed off meaninglessly will eventually sink in if we don't give up as readily as the defeatist coalition would have us. Death is a certainly a deanimator. Eventually, everyone tires of seeing death around them, especially in 5000:1 or 10000:1 ratios.

Ah, I gotcha. So, the goal here is just to kill enough of them to get them to like us.

So, what is that magical number there, sparky? I see you're quite fond of the Japanese example, so let's see, between firebombing Tokyo and the 2 nukes, that's about 300,000 give or take. One-third of a million people dead in order to placate a population.

I'm afraid I can't continue discussing this with someone who would so willingly sacrifice hundreds of thousands of innocent lives for foreign policy.

 

[ArmedBear]

One more thing...

This stuff was all a lot easier before things like missiles and aircraft carriers existed.

There was a time when, to be a threat, a nation-state had to sail and march over to your country. It was pretty danged obvious when there was a "war".

Until after WW II, a faraway bankrupt speck of a country like North Korea couldn't have posed a threat to the US. That's just no longer true.

The Colt revolver may have been an individual equalizer; since then, there are "equalizers" for nations and even other violent actors like Al Qaeda. Our 21st century foreign policy can't be based on guarding against 19th century threats.

 

[Boats]

Ah, I gotcha. So, the goal here is just to kill enough of them to get them to like us.

Just shooting until stopped would suffice. Would you need the crippled perps you just shot down to suddenly develop a need to like you? I can see where you might be preoccupied with the need to be liked, as unlikeable as you are.

So, what is that magical number there, sparky? I see you're quite fond of the Japanese example, so let's see, between firebombing Tokyo and the 2 nukes, that's about 300,000 give or take. One-third of a million people dead in order to placate a population.

Placate? A telling word choice:

Placate--–verb (used with object), -cat·ed, -cat·ing.
to appease or pacify, esp. by concessions or conciliatory gestures: to placate an outraged citizenry.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/placate

Appeasement is your game Neville. I do think the actual goal is that of winning. There is no need for a projected number or a timeline. The goal takes whatever it demands. Some apparently think the feelings of the enemy take precedent.

I'm afraid I can't continue discussing this with someone who would so willingly sacrifice hundreds of thousands of innocent lives for foreign policy.

No loss there, since you haven't a clue as to what in the hell you are talking about.

 

[Boats]

Don't we debate self-defense all day long on this board?

The time to pull out your gun and start shooting is when ________________. Just apply what you're comfortable with to the country at large.

You might try that on a lot of subjects. I'd wager, once you thought it all through, you might not want to actually have to live in the country/world you've been hankering for before trying that exercise.

In every other context, the world has cops and punitive court systems, not the law of the jungle.

In the world with enforceable laws, if you find that someone is plotting to kill you, you must wait for them to at least take one concrete step towards carrying out the conspiracy to exercise self-defense and in the meanwhile your fate is mostly in the hands of the duly appointed authorities.

In a world wherein the only TRUE rule is that you look out for number one, a world with no cops and no courts of competent jurisdiction, where a cohort of ineffectual international babblers lets wrong after wrong go by the boards without so much as a finger lifted, it is easy to justify crossing up the conspirators by plugging them behind their ears before they get far at all.

What? You gonna get arrested or something?