Pat Buchanan defending Ron Paul

[PaladinX13]

Something that amazes me is that the same government that can't be trusted with our privacy, with the economy, with monopoly, with our freedoms, etc... suddenly are so capable in the realm of foreign policy?

First Do No Harm.
First remove the plank from your own eye.

That a problem exists is not the same as saying doing anything is justified. Given the awesome power of government to bring about consequences both here and abroad, it's completely reasonable to err on the side of cautious defense rather than incalculable offensive measures- even if we were 100% justified (and we've rarely been) we have almost NEVER been right in predicting the outcome of intervention both in the short and long term.

Even if Ron Paul isn't 100% correct or informed on foreign policy (though more informed than most having been a long-standing congressional committee member on Foreign Policy), erring on the side of non-intervention means his personal impact is minimized compared to the willy-nilly wartime powers of a power-mad President.

"But the notion that presidents should establish our broader foreign policy is dangerous and wrong. No single individual should be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of deciding when to send our troops abroad, how to employ them once abroad, and when to bring them home. This is why the founders wanted Congress, the body most directly accountable to the public, to make critical decisions about war and peace."

Government always seeks to be more governing and always seeks more power and ALWAYS does it with what it says [and even believes most times] are the best of intentions. The Road to Hell is paved with those Good Intentions. The Founders knew and feared this very thing.

We, as citizens, should remember the THREAT Government represents is hundred-fold a greater threat than the threats the Government says it's protecting you from and taking your liberties from you in the name of. Erring on the side of inaction, as the Founders and the Constitution intended, protects us more than ANY anti-terrorist military maneuver abroad does by LIMITING the powers, scope, and consequences of the Government.

 

[coltrane679]

We, as citizens, should remember the THREAT Government represents is hundred-fold a greater threat than the threats the Government says it's protecting you from and taking your liberties from you in the name of. Erring on the side of inaction, as the Founders and the Constitution intended, protects us more than ANY anti-terrorist military maneuver abroad does by LIMITING the powers, scope, and consequences of the Government.

No terrorist can take away our liberties--only we can do that ourselves, driven by fear. And fear is what has been sold to us relentlessly since 9-11.

 

[ArmedBear]

erring on the side of non-intervention means his personal impact is minimized

No it doesn't.

Carter's non-intervention had at least as much personal impact as Clinton's intervention.

That's what I've been saying. It's just not that simple.

Inaction can get people killed and make the country more vulnerable, too.

 

[Boats]

Ron Paul said:

"But the notion that presidents should establish our broader foreign policy is dangerous and wrong. No single individual should be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of deciding when to send our troops abroad, how to employ them once abroad, and when to bring them home. This is why the founders wanted Congress, the body most directly accountable to the public, to make critical decisions about war and peace."

So much for that vaunted understanding of the Constitution. Maybe he glossed over Article II, Section 2? The above quote is so wrong on so many fundamental levels that it is quite comical.

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." Art. 2, Sec. 2

Congress authorizes action. Check. Congress is asked for funds to prosecute the action as required. Check. The Senate ratifies any treaties negotiated by the President. Check.

Congress' only say otherwise is to discontinue funding the war, or impeach and convict him out of office, since any deployment, redeployment, or treaty negotiations are also in the purview of the President.

 

[GoRon]

I think we need to start by acknowledging that we'd be better of if we could snap our fingers and undo 7 decades worth of meddling internationally, because it always seems to come back to haunt us. 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 don't know what world you live in, the one I live in is better off for the 70 years of "meddling".

The UK is better off, France is better off, our defeated enemies Germany and Japan are better off, all of Europe for that matter is better off. All of the Soviet satellites are arguably better off, being free to chart their own course out from under the boot of the USSR.

Are we better off? You betcha. We live in the richest and relatively freest country on the planet due to our alliances and economic cooperation with the rest of the world.

Have there been mistakes? yes

Has there been blowback? yes

Should we withdraw from the world stage breaking all the agreements, promises and alliances made over "seven decades"? NO!

Ron Paul is cabinet member material at best.

 

[shootinstudent]

The UK is better off, France is better off, our defeated enemies Germany and Japan are better off, all of Europe for that matter is better off. All of the Soviet satellites are arguably better off, being free to chart their own course out from under the boot of the USSR.

Are we better off? You betcha. We live in the richest and relatively freest country on the planet due to our alliances and economic cooperation with the rest of the world.

Well, with a list like that of better-offs, you shouldn't be surprised that people not on the list are unhappy with all this meddling. Why should they have to suffer military dictatorships so that people in France can work fewer hours or people in the US can buy gas-hogs?

Inaction can get people killed and make the country more vulnerable, too.

The problem with this is that "action" is almost never about a real military threat. Saddam was no military threat. Neither is Iran. Unless we insist on being in control of the Gulf, of course. But if you forego the interventionist demands, there's really no military threat to the United States at all. No vessel with invading troops would be able to even make the beaches as it stands today.

The proposition that all these millions of people in the Middle East hate us for some reason other than intervention in their countries is just absurd. They do have military and political goals-in every case it seems to be "ending foreign intervention in the homeland."

Historians will someday read what Americans are now writing about "defending the homeland" and the "great progress" in Iraq, and they will collapse in ridicule. We're quickly becoming a case study of how easily facts can be distorted, and wars justified for really, really thinly veiled colonial purposes.

On September 11th, the war in America's collective mind began, but the fact is that for Arab states it had begun decades earlier, when America started shipping loads of ammunition to Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Who knows how many were killed in the Arabian peninsula because of the need to maintain friendly dictatorships? Undoubtedly thousands were tortured and killed. And then there was the first gulf war...few hundred thousand dead there, to protect a pair of extremely unpopular and corrupt monarchies.

But yeah, we'll persist in pretending that it's "complicated" to figure out why they hate us because that allows us to justify almost any policy under the sun

 

[PaladinX13]

No it doesn't.

Carter's non-intervention had at least as much personal impact as Clinton's intervention.

That's what I've been saying. It's just not that simple.

Inaction can get people killed and make the country more vulnerable, too.

FIRST do no harm.
That's not the same as saying, "NEVER do ANYTHING."

Terrorism is more like a cancer than a criminal and needs to be treated as such, with precision and the preservation of the host in mind... we've been "treating" the cancer with the subtly and indiscretion of a handgun or lead pipe.

 

[GoRon]

Well, with a list like that of better-offs, you shouldn't be surprised that people not on the list are unhappy with all this meddling.

The list is by no means comprehensive.

Seeing as you are a student of middle east politics maybe you can shed some light on why the region is still so FUBARed in spite of the billions upon billions of dollars pouring into the region. Everyone on the planet benefits from trade with the USA except the middle east where we send a disproportionate amount of both aid and trade dollars.

Are we keeping the Arab/Persian man down? They don't do well under our puppets they don't do well under their own tyrants, whats the deal?

Funny how all the immigrants from these countries seem to do just fine once they get here. Maybe the problem is with the culture in the region and not with us here in the States.

All voting for a guy like Paul will do is embolden the radical elements in the region.

 

[PaladinX13]

So much for that vaunted understanding of the Constitution. Maybe he glossed over Article II, Section 2? The above quote is so wrong on so many fundamental levels that it is quite comical.

I'd say your faulty analysis shows something equally comical or terrifyingly similar to Giuliani's demagoguery.

The inability [more likely unwillingness] to separate what was actually SAID and what you want to hear. The authority over the troops is different than the authority to use them however he likes. Ron Paul is pro-gun, but that doesn't mean he believes you should be allowed to use a gun however you like if that involves harm or aggression to others (not to the exclusion of harming others defensively). Likewise, prior to Congress' traitorous act of handing over their war and peace determining powers to the Executive branch, the People, by way of Congress determined the Arena in which the Commander of Chief could exercise his authority. It is not inherently wrong for the President to be Commander in Chief... it's wrong for him to be BOTH Commander in Chief AND- practically- the sole arbiter of what, when, and where war is.

 

[Jeff]

Why haven't we bombed North Korea, Iraq and Syria yet?

Don't they have all the dangerous big weapons, Boats?

What are we waiting for?

We gotta take them out before they take us out, heh Lemay?

 

[shootinstudent]

Seeing as you are a student of middle east politics maybe you can shed some light on why the region is still so FUBARed in spite of the billions upon billions of dollars pouring into the region. Everyone on the planet benefits from trade with the USA except the middle east where we send a disproportionate amount of both aid and trade dollars.

Sure, look at where the money goes: Toys for dictators and western-made arms for regime protection. Of course it's screwed up-the people who get the billions are accountable to Washington, not to their own populations. The Saudi princes don't benefit one cent more from empowering the people of Saudi Arabia-and they get to keep all the cash they want as long as they have enough intelligence and military support to kill the opposition.

Are we keeping the Arab/Persian man down? They don't do well under our puppets they don't do well under their own tyrants, whats the deal?

The sad part about that statement is that even under their own tyrants, they do remarkably better than under Washington supported tyrants.

Take Iran as an example. It's relatively isolated and thus has to find support from within for its corruption and dictatorship. This means that the average Iranian has far, far more freedom and participation in his government than the average Saudi. It's an actual government, and the relative political and military strength of Iran (compared to Saudi Arabia) shows it.

But of course, it's hard to prove this case, because there really aren't any countries in that region besides Iran without puppet governments.

Funny how all the immigrants from these countries seem to do just fine once they get here. Maybe the problem is with the culture in the region and not with us here in the States.

Hmm, do immigrants check their culture at the door? Last I checked, there's no collection box for it at customs.

If you acknowledge that people who are culturally middle eastern do very well when they come here (and they do-they have a higher average income than any other immigrant group)....then you can't really blame the "culture" or the people, can you?

It's truly astounding to see the public discourse on the middle east. On the one hand, they're cultural failures who can never accomplish any development (so for the purposes of cultural comparison, they're societal midgets...)....

But when it comes to assessing the NATIONAL SECURITY! threat, the Arabs instantly become evil masterminds capable of dominating the entire world if left to their own devices.

Which is it? Are these failed states with no economic achievements to note, or are they giants looming over the rest of the planet? They can't be both...unless of course, the facts aren't important.

 

[antarti]

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?

Wow, a supporter of international gangsterism... that's a new one on me.

So far, the way we "look out for #1" doesn't seem to make much sense though.

In a world where I can type this, send the bits at the speed of light, and you can read it seconds (or less) later, you would think leaders of 2 countries could actually communicate with each other and discuss something, even (especially?) in the absence of (and I agree 100% with your description) "ineffectual international babblers".

In such a world (the world of reality) all we really control, 100%, is our own behavior. If you believe that you would revert to La Cosa Nostra standards in the absence of others controlling you, please don't project that on me, I have my own standards, even in the absence of all others.

But thanks for at least giving me that insight into your mindset, I was confused as hell without it.

 

[otomik]

Mosadeq (sp?) was actually elected IIRC, despite his political leanings.

Lets talk about Mosaddeq, since he was specifically sighted by RP. He was moving quickly into the Soviet sphere of influence, he held a national referendum to dissolve parliament which voted yes 99.9% Does that seem a little suspicious to you? Chalmers Johnson is an idiot and finding out that Ron Paul is reading his book "Blowback" is a real disappointment.

I wouldn't want the Iranian CIA-equivalent trying to depose elected officials from my own government (no matter how tempting that might sound at times, given some of our elected officials), would you?

yes I would. Hitler was elected, Milosevic was elected. If the elected president held a national referendum to dissolve congress and 99.9% voted yes I would be investing heavily in lead.

 

[Warren]

I don't care what his foreign policy skillz are.

If he will attempt to get rid of fed level gun control I'll vote for him.

If he will attempt to get the feds out of my life in other areas I'll vote for him.

If he will attempt to s-can all the idotic taxes and regulations that strangle business and wealth creation in this country I'll vote for him.

These issues are vastly more important to me than the War on (Some) Terror or what our standing with other countries is.

 

[.45&TKD]

I don't care what his foreign policy skillz are.

If he will attempt to get rid of fed level gun control I'll vote for him.

If he will attempt to get the feds out of my life in other areas I'll vote for him.

If he will attempt to s-can all the idotic taxes and regulations that strangle business and wealth creation in this country I'll vote for him.

These issues are vastly more important to me than the War on (Some) Terror or what our standing with other countries is.

Its hard to argue with that kind of logic. Well said.

 

[SalTx]

I support Ron Paul. And I don't give one crap about anyone other than American citizens. If one has interests abroad, one should go live abroad. And stay there.

 

[xd9fan]

Something that amazes me is that the same government that can't be trusted with our privacy, with the economy, with monopoly, with our freedoms, etc... suddenly are so capable in the realm of foreign policy?

This is the disconnect of the GOP.
"What strikes me as ridiculous is the right-wing view that government is incompetent and dangerous domestically – at least in economic and social affairs – but has some sort of Midas Touch internationally such that it can bring freedom, democracy, and justice to any land its troops deign to invade."
-Lew Rockwell

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/ron-paul-pf.html

 

[budney]

Inaction can get people killed and make the country more vulnerable, too.

Nobody advocates "inaction." For example, it would be appropriate to be industrious about arming the populace, encouraging the civilians (i.e., the militia) to train (i.e., to become "well regulated"), etc. Those are strong positive steps that don't involve slaughtering any innocents (let alone tens of thousands of them).

There are lots of useful actions out there other than invasion and wars of aggression.

--Len.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Look, this is the thing.

Our foreign policy is driven by companies that make alot of money making the weapons required to manage this little Empire of ours.

ICBMs, aircraft carriers, intercontinental bombers, tanks designed to stand up to the apocolypse, fighter jets so advanced they cost a few billion a piece.

And, what has this gotten us in Iraq? Nothing.

Has anyone here heard of the Iranian Quds Force? No? Well, they are the people who arm and train the Mahdi Army in Iraq (although their weapons and training are all over the resistance there). We use a million dollar tank, they use an IED that costed them maybe $100 if that to make, and blow it up.

We take out a member of Al Qaeda or Mahdi Army with a million dollar cruise missile, they kill an Officer with a $0.25 bullet.

Iran has their version of the Green Berets who cross into Iraq by SUV or overland on foot for little money. We send aircraft carriers, and transport planes at a cost of billions of dollars.

We spend this money, we bankrupt ourselves, and these same companies smile all the way to the bank, robbing taxpayers.

Ron Paul understands this and suggests we stay in our own backyard. Largely because he knows if (as he pointed out) a foreign power did this to us, we'd object.

In his scenario of the Chinese setting up bases in the Continental US, I see myself sniping Chinese, and setting IEDs.

Why are surprised the Iraqis are doing the same?

 

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by .45&TKD:
Saying this may get this thread shut down, but the muslim extremists would hate us and will hate us (Christians and Jews) regardless of what we do or have done. Islam was orignally spread by the sword and will continue to be.

I am not a Christian or a Jew so please dont use "us".

Christianity was also spread by the sword, so what? How many times has the Vatican been attacked in recent times? I mean that is one of the major centers of Christianity in the modern world, Isnt it?

What about the fact that we are in their holy land?

 

[.45&TKD]

I am not a Christian or a Jew so please dont use "us".

Christianity was also spread by the sword, so what? How many times has the Vatican been attacked in recent times? I mean that is one of the major centers of Christianity in the modern world, Isnt it?

What about the fact that we are in their holy land?

No offense Tecumseh, but you live in a country that was founded by Christians and a culture based on Judeo/Christian values, and the the militant muslims hate would hate our country (us) for that reason alone, regardless of your personal beliefs.

Jesus did not teach violence as a way of spreading Christianity. Mohammed did preach violence and conduct violence as a way of spreading Islam. Granted the Vatican has been wrong on many issues throughout history, but Jesus wasn't and the Vatican is not Jesus.

The fact that only muslims can be in "their holy land" is just another example of muslim extremist racist beliefs.

 

[antarti]

Lets talk about Mosaddeq, since he was specifically sighted by RP. He was moving quickly into the Soviet sphere of influence, he held a national referendum to dissolve parliament which voted yes 99.9% Does that seem a little suspicious to you? Chalmers Johnson is an idiot and finding out that Ron Paul is reading his book "Blowback" is a real disappointment.

I haven't read "Blowback" so I can't comment on the authors idiocy.

However I miss your point on the Iranians. If they elected a Socialist, don't you think they knew that he would likely be a Socialist?

So, in order to help them, we remove him and give them the Shah, which eventually leads to Khomeni, and a war (helped/fueled along by us again) with Iraq.

-Cut to the present-

I am listening to candidate for President talk about pre-emptively attacking them instead of using a proxy (this time). Somehow, I think having them discover for themselves that Socialism is a crock might have ended better, for us and them.

There's another tidbit in all this you (and a lot of other people arguing over this Iran/Shah/Mosadeq isssue) might be interested in. You see the Shah, our buddy, had a secret nuclear program too! Of course, Carter didn't know it at the time, and we only learned about it later. So there's another one to ponder, what if the Shah actually got to spend all his days as ruler. We would really have seen the "mushroom cloud" as being our first inkling that Iran was a nuclear power. It's also interesting that Khomeni wanted nothing to do with that program, and shut it down. Khomeni viewed nukes as an evil Western invention. It was the war with Sadam (that we were helping at the time) that dragged on long enough, and our sinking of half the Iranian Navy, that convinced Khomeni to start putting some resources back into that nuke program. Good luck trying to avoid those "unintended consequences"... Non-intervention isn't perfect, but the odds are far better you'll never receive the blowback of your "enlightened" approach to managing other people's lives.

I would also like to point something out:

Probably a huge percentage of people on THR would agree Carter's foreign policy (frankly) stunk, but now discussing blowback, I see post after post about how what Carter did was either necessary, proper, or of no real consequence either way. Can we (collectively, so I don't get flamed again) have it both ways here?

Hitler was elected, Milosevic was elected. If the elected president held a national referendum to dissolve congress and 99.9% voted yes I would be investing heavily in lead.

3 completely different issues.

What if Panama had that referendum, would you be investing in lead and scrambling down there? Because that's what we're talking about here, something that happened to them not us.

 

[Autolycus]

.45&TKD: Can you please post some proof that Mohammed wanted Muslims to spread Islam through violence? So the Vatican does not represent Jesus and all Christians but the terrorists represent Mohammed and all Muslims? Thats a double standard isn't it?

And this family was not found on Judeo-Christian values as the majority of the Founding Fathers were neither Christian or Jewish.

 

[otomik]

Look, this is the thing.

Our foreign policy is driven by companies that make alot of money making the weapons required to manage this little Empire of ours.

ICBMs, aircraft carriers, intercontinental bombers, tanks designed to stand up to the apocolypse, fighter jets so advanced they cost a few billion a piece.

there is one plane in the entire inventory whose price tag is over a billion, that is the b2 spirit "stealth bomber", it's a cold war holdover. but maybe you want to be like chalmers johnson and declare the cold war a haux as well. an f-22 raptor costs around 100 million but thats a cold war design too. There's the F35 that is post cold war R&D and those cost 48 to 63 million a pop.

We spend this money, we bankrupt ourselves, and these same companies smile all the way to the bank, robbing taxpayers.

The Defense budget has been shrinking since WWII (37% of GDP then, 9.4% in 1968, 3.7% now), it's the non-discretionary budget of entitlements that has the ability to sink the economy. Watch out whenever someone wants to show you a pie chart of the US Discretionary spending, that's the mere tip of the iceberg.

In his scenario of the Chinese setting up bases in the Continental US, I see myself sniping Chinese, and setting IEDs.

Why are surprised the Iraqis are doing the same?

In such a scenario I see myself shooting a terrorist that goes by the name Mordechai. If you're really making a fair comparison I would likely support intervention by outside powers if the US government turns into a mass grave generating socialist hell hole like Saddam's Iraq.

 

[otomik]

What if Panama had that referendum, would you be investing in lead and scrambling down there? Because that's what we're talking about here, something that happened to them not us.

Your empathy is a one way street. What if I'm a Panamanian and need some help getting my country back from a brutal dictator? You want George Washington without Von Steubon or La Fayette.

However I miss your point on the Iranians. If they elected a Socialist, don't you think they knew that he would likely be a Socialist?

yes and no, after he nationalized oil he went on a downward spiral of breaking the constitution and unpopularity by the clerics and tudeh.

So, in order to help them, we remove him and give them the Shah, which eventually leads to Khomeni, and a war (helped/fueled along by us again) with Iraq.

the shah was not invented, he was there the whole time, it was a real constitutional monarchy in substance, not just the queen on their money etc. The Shah in power was a return to normalcy, he had about 20 years of sound reforms then turned into a autocratic czar in the 70's. Khomeini is not like Mossadegh. The Iran-Iraq war was not started by the US, they got in there later helping Iraq to prevent Iran from winning. Saddam was not put into power by the US, that is a total myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990