Ron Paul makes me like US conservatives again

Remove all ads!

Ron Paul makes me like US conservatives again. I read speeces and articles he wrote since 2001 or so. He doesn’t have to issue any apologies. He was always against the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and he was largely vindicated in his scepticism. No “Yeah but now I’m against it” routine from him.

I find him giving Rudy Giuliani homework to do hilarious. Giuliani is a dolt. Reason I write this thread is that in all the silly reporting on this, few reports bothered to mention the books by name, which I will now do.

• Anonymous - Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror ($ 12,21 on Amazon.com)
• Robert A. Pape - Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism ($ 10,17 on Amazon.com)
• Chalmers Johnson - Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire ($ 10,20 on Amazon.com)

I read all of these books, except for the 911 comission report, which Paul also mentioned. I found them persuasive and astute, and I am happy to see that Paul seems to share this view. I would only add to that list the excellent book:

• Andrew Bacevich - The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War ($ 10,85 on Amazon.com)

Sadly, Bacevich's son fell in Iraq just two weeks ago. Doubly painful for Bacevich as a father and as a scholar who saw the writing on the wall well before the Iraq war, and who opposed the war as a folly from the beginning.

If anyone wants to buy any of these books, make sure to enter Amazon through SP

 

War can be opposed for reasons other than morals. It sounds like these people thought that the war was impractical and otherwise not a good idea. Looking back, it was poorly executed, even if morally imperative...

 

Indeed it can. On principle for instance.

To be sure, you could go the extraordinary step and read the books, and find out that you're wrong here, and why.

 

Ron Paul is, from what I know, an example of the "paleo"conservatives that, I think, were predominant until the 1990s. I feel almost nostalgic when I see something about him - like a whiff from a time when the Republicans were real Republicans, the Democrats were real Democrats (with spines ), and the small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri... oops, carried away there . I sometimes wonder if the entire neocon affair wasn't a marketing trick by the rest of the party to make the old-school conservative ideas more appealing. I know it's far-fetched, but it seems effective.

I guess I might take a look at the FFF site to see if they have anything on him.

 

No Credit card, so I can't order stuff online, and ADHD, meaning that reading is harder than it would be otherwise...

 

Library?

 

Morally imperative? "Preemptive" war is never a moral imperative. This war hasn't improved the lot of the Iraqi people, it hasn't helped the US, it hasn't stabilized the Middle East (in fact, it did the opposite), and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see it was never going to. War causes incomprehensible suffering and it should always be the last resort. If you want a moral imperative, how about not rushing to war without provocation and without fully exploiting each and every diplomatic option available beforehand? That is a moral imperative.

[ May 29, 2007, 11:43: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Drew, your thinking is just so 1940's... Where do you get this stuff, the Nurenberg trial?

@Ragusa: I doubt that any library close by will have those books, at least in this decade... Pity, I will probably have to look at excerpts, at least for a while.

Edit: yep, the FFF seems to practically be drooling. Can't say I blame them - they seem to be a libertarian group, so it must have been hard on them to have "their" party hijacked like that. I wonder what a libertarian ex-classmate of mine might know on the issue... Presuming that he has recovered from his graduation ball, that is.

((This reflects my presumption that Bush is very far from a libertarian. If anyone has proof to the contrary, please let me know))

[ May 29, 2007, 12:47: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

Shaman,
if you buy them second hand or order them in the US you can make a real bargain. I recommend reading the originals though.

 

I was wondering how long it'd take 'til someone posted 'I <3 Ron Paul'.

Figures the guy who does so is a Naz--er, German--and not an American conservative.

But yeah, Ron Paul is looking more and more like the only acceptable Rep candidate.

 

The man displays common sense.

From all available candidates in both parties he is the first to really dare adress the elephant in the room, that the US, some 15 years after the end of the cold war has effectively failed to seriously address its foreign policy posture.

The hysterical reactions on that suggest to me that this is something terribly new Think.About.What.To.Do.Publicly. He deserves merit for that alone.

 

Your right. It's silly to suggest that we handle problems without sacrificing hundreds of thousands of lives and de-stabilizing an entire region unless it is absolutely necessary. I'm an idiot.

 

From what I have gathered through the first two interviews that Ragusa sent me, the backlash against US foreign policy has reached a critical mass. 9/11 was a result of that, but instead of making it better, things became worse for the common citizens in the regions, and was poorly executed by the Republicans.

Seeing as there is a lack of clear resolve among the American people, this war will not end. They insist on sticking their nose into foreign policy, for whatever reason, further aggravating these factions. I don't see any answers. And I don't think this started with King George either. Was he even old enough to get into his old man's liquor cabinet when all this stuff started? Assuming that the first of these was 1948, with the founding of Israel, how much can we blame on George W? Sure he messed up royally, but he's not the only one...

 

Who was it who said the US has oscillated wildly between isolationism and messianic wars? Morgenthau?

 

An interesting interview from a just retired PR expert from the State Department:

 

I contributed to Ron's campaign in March - a little before the debates began (and I didn't take it out of Sorcerer's Place funds either! ). I like his values, and I like his message. The Republican party has been so bastardized in the last 10 years, it's good to see someone who values personal liberty and responsibility, fiscal conservativism and a desire to let the market decide things!

Average Americans are sheep, so I don't think Ron will win, but I hope he wakes some of the population out of its TV slumber!

Go Ron!

 

Well, given the competition... I don't seem to get it. Does the Republican Party think that it's enjoying unlimited popularity, that they are putting up those people?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070531/ap_on_el_pr/on_the2008_trail_14

Enter Mitt Romney, the US leading specialist on Europe - and healthcare, of course. And since it's election, and we're talking Democratic Party nominees, someone had to put France in this. Does someone else have a feeling of deja vu about that?

"Romney said the election of Clinton as president would force the country to veer off course economically, militarily and socially."

Okay, I can see for example someone in the Bush Sr. administration saying that, but have the last 6 years or so been that successful? Militarily, socially or, heck, even economically?

""I'm convinced if Hillary were president ... that we would see instead of a stronger military and a stronger economy and stronger families, we'd see a weaker military because she would ... be able to spend money on the social programs that she favors," he said. "We'd see a weaker economy because she'd raise taxes and we'd have less money going into the private sector and creating new jobs. We'd see weaker families as well."

"Contrasting himself with Clinton, Romney also reiterated his support for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Clinton has said she wouldn't support such an amendment."

Oh yes, instead of a serious analysis we get this. Someone also mention him that H.R. Clinton doesn't cast a reflection in a mirror, and the crosses on churches twist whenever she enters the building, and milk curdles whenever she so much as passes by. Burn her!

Of course, that presumes that Clinton will actually have the desire, courage and ability to lead a radically different policy than what has been the norm in the last 25 years or so. I don't see it happening on any of the three counts, she has already put herself too much in the center. Not to mention that a serious analysis might include the idea that the US is spending a lot of its GDP on healthcare... several percent more than most other states, iirc. OR how the VA administration could use some extra funding (darn those social programs!) after its budget was kept or cut during 6 years of constant conflicts. OR how these low taxes AND judicious spending have meant an increasing deficit which someone eventually has to pay for (did Bush Sr. break his promise and raise taxes because he was possessed by the ghost of Lenin?) and which might also be harmful for the economy. OR how great extended tours of duty in Iraq are for the military families - you'd have thought that with all the help they provide for briefings or photo ops at least they'd get some love.

European caricature, huh. The only semi-new thing in a tirade of endless, and often unsupported cliches... To quote the Bandit Killer, Dragon Spooker, Enemy of All Who Live, and one of my favourite fictional heroines "now it's a battle of the cliche men." Let's see what Guiliani or McCain can do to top this.

Actually, before that, I have a question. How does Mr. Healthcare stand on Roe v Wade?

[ June 01, 2007, 01:21: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

Back on topic for a moment...

After hearing the interviews, I've realized that the alternating incompetence between Republicans and Democrats has placed the US in a catch 22. They are forced into foreign policies that aggravate the groups like Al Queda in order to keep the whole nation from collapsing...

 

That is certainly true. That is why I see folks like Paul as so interesting. He might finally kick off reflection in this regard. Paul suggests strongly to have an nationwide public debate about it, something that's thus far not happening. The issue is only adressed in the realms of academia and the bipartisan elite.

The idea that the world will fall apart if the US leave, say, the island of Okinawa, or Iraq, is deeply etched into the brains in both parties. In respect of US global ambition and 'Selbstverständnis' there is little difference between Dems and Reps. With this 'Selbstverständnis' comes the claim to be be entitled to act at whim.

Bush has just announced that his vision for Iraq is that US troops will be there for 50+ years. That much for 'no permanent bases' and, besides, did anybody bother to consult the Iraqis for their, apparently violently dissenting, view? As if to literally cement this ambition he ordered the construction of the largest embassy on earth, a permanent base in its own right, roughly the size of the Vatican. Or it was the other way around. Not that it really makes a difference.

The 'how-to' is where they differ. The Dems under Clinton, or so to say, the entire internationalist wing, conducted themselves in such a manner as not to antagonise the rest of the world, Bin Laden and some other angry Muslims excluded, and still have their way. But then already Madelein Albright famously said:

And as Chalmers Johnson said, she didn't even have the Cold War to justify her jingoism. Indispensable? To what? Where? Why? And why did she find it neccessary to say that?

In 9/11 Bush Sr's and Clinton's more digestive policies yielded blowback. It turns my stomach to ponder what Bush's antagonistic policies will reap.

Today the damage Bush has done to the sustainability of previous US foreign policy in the region might be well irreversible. Bush clearly is radioactive, but that's just half the story. By being as antagonistic as he was he probably has inadvertendly undermined the feasibility of imperial foreign policy. That is a blowback in itself. Policies that were possible under Clinton won't work for Bush because today the audience is so pissed off. Rightly or wrongly, Bush is today seen on TV daily, actively lording over the slaughter of hundreds in Iraq, Afghanistan, and tacitly in the Holy Land. That image is sure to piss off many more people that Clinton's low key approach.

In a sense the Bushies took what the bipartisan consensus did, and, and once shocked out of the bumbling on 9/11, put it on steroids, as an apt expression of their hubris, and dropped any pretense of going along with the world and by the rules.

One of those things the US did, long before Bush and originally to piss off the Soviets, was to make a habit of lecturing the world, including my country, on our human rights record. Yearly. Among the things the State Department grades are:

Yeah? Throughout the country? Wow. Didn't know that, and I live here. That last point is a problem indeed, and a small one with approx 20 public cases a year -- way too often, but something we are well aware of. Gosh, I'm glad that race related harassment is a non issue in the US. And if you then think of stuff like the conduct at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, rendition, government memos on 'enhanced interrogation techniques', military comissions, the public dispute among GOP presidential candidates about torture.... Yo, thanks for the lecture Condi! Now imagine how preaching like that hits in the Middle East. The State Department expert from my last post has a point.

The US word weighs little today. Point in case is that the US, finally, are about to ratify the treaty for the law of the sea. Why? After all it has been one of those projects the right (Helms for instance) in the past liked to hate - in opposition to the rest of the world, US experts, including the US Navy. Reason was that the Bushies once again said that they wanted to 'go international'. The message from Europe was that talk is cheap.

[ June 01, 2007, 21:06: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

The problem is that the blowback only speeds up the American agenda. The attacks on 9/11 provoked the US, therefore they jumped in on Afghanistan, and were pissed off enough to jump into an ill-advised war over imagined slights from Saddam Hussein.

One more major terrorist attack and nations like Syria, Lebanon or Iran will be given the option to roll over for the Americans or face invasion. And we'll likely see a continued escalation...

One terrorist attack, lose two more nations to the US. Not a win for al Queda if you ask me...