Separated at Birth.
Posted on 09/06/2007 10:24:50 AM PDT by NapkinUser
Then tell RoPaul to stop earmarking so much!
Wasn’t Ron Paul a famous Drag Queen in the 1980’s?
Yep, Ronald Reagan enforced the Monroe Doctrine in Latin America, and retaliated against Libya for a specific act of state terrorism (you'll note we didn't invade). Retaliation isn't inconsistent with noninterventionism, and the Monroe Doctrine has almost 200 years of precedent. I will give you that Ron Paul is more opposed to foreign aid than Reagan was, but Ron Paul also doesn't have to worry about proxy wars with the Soviets.
If you can't distinguish between the idea of intervening only when and as much as is necessary to retaliate against actions or threats against us, and the idea that America is always wrong and we should root for our communist/fascist/islamist enemies, then I can't help you.
Maybe you don't like elections but we have a democracy, not a military or religious dictatorship. Those who respond to voters win the next election.
I don’t assume anything. It is a fact that you said that supporting minimal government was acceptable pre-9/11 but not post-9/11. Therefore, something changed in your view of the proper role of government, because the Constitution did not change in that time frame.
I’m glad that we went into Afghanistan and Iraq and eliminated states that posed threats to us either directly or as state sponsors of terrorism. Now that that’s done, I don’t think it’s “cloudcuckooland” to question why our military is being used as Baghdad Highway Patrol for a freely elected pro-U.S. government when we have a completely open border and veritable terrorist factories in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, both of whom are ostensibly allies. Perhaps rather than attempting to wait until every terrorist in the world comes to Iraq and lines up in front of our troops’ weapons, it would make sense to just lock those crazy death cult members out of our country, and then at least make an attempt to work with the moderate non-crazy death cult members in regions of the world that spawn the death cult members.
Can't be that either, because we did those things too, and we still can't leave.
Fascinating analysis.
Would Ron Paul endorse our intervention in El Salvador?
Where is the Monroe Doctrine in the Constitution?
and retaliated against Libya for a specific act of state terrorism
Without first issuing letters of marque and reprisal?
If you can't distinguish between the idea of intervening only when and as much as is necessary to retaliate against actions or threats against us
I thought Ron Paul's advice when we are threatened (for example when we send military advisors to Saudi Arabia at the request of that country's government) is to simply do whatever the threateners tell us to do and run away with out tails between our legs.
the idea that America is always wrong and we should root for our communist/fascist/islamist enemies
Ron Paul seems to believe that America was the bad guy in Mossadegh-era Iran and that the Communists were the good guys. He hews to the Communist historical position on that matter. He also claims that the Communists did not unleash a bloodbath in Southeast Asia after the US left, so he hews to the Communist historical position on that matter as well.
These certainly aren't conservative or patriotic ways to look at the facts of these cases. Nor is his analysis of the "root causes" of 9/11: "We've been bombing over there for 10 years."
Again, this is not how Reagan saw the world or America's role in it.
People should act in their own rational self-interest. Frequently, that involves voluntary interaction with other people. It’s not “relying” in the sense of needing another person to take care of you, but it is “relying” in the sense that one would be happier with the interaction than without it. How does that conflict with objectivism in any way?
Yes and very clever it is...
So is “Liberaltarian”.
It's not....when you redefine "relying" away from the sense in which many objectivists appear to be using the term when they use it.
Fortunately, I don't have to. Since he's not on the House Appropriations Committee, he has no authority to earmark.
I guess I could ask him not to support any earmarks, and not to make any deals with committee members for any earmarks, and not to use any influence to get earmarks added to bills, and not to vote for any bills with earmarks, and not to trade his vote on someone else's bill with earmarks, and not to ever get any of his constituents' earmarks approved. But then, he already does that.
That's funny. I was pretty sure I lived in a republic, a republic whose Founders specifically eschewed direct democracy as a danger to good government.
Perhaps you believe that Hamilton, Madison and Washington advocated military or religious dictatorships because they were wary of democracy. I don't see it that way at all.
Those who respond to voters win the next election.
Many candidates have confused phone poll results with the long-term views of the electorate. Ultimately to their chagrin.
Let's see how many votes would-be panderer Ron Paul receives in the 2008 Presidential election.
Well, in fairness, neither of us knows the sense in which the woman described in the original article was using the term. And you’re right; when objectivists use the term in the sense of requiring someone else to take care of you, they are using it in a negative sense that conflicts with objectivism.
Separated at Birth.
Those are an option when you have a specific target, not the only method of retaliation against a declared enemy. We wanted to retaliate against Qaddhafi's government in Libya, so we used a military strike to do it.
I thought Ron Paul's advice when we are threatened (for example when we send military advisors to Saudi Arabia at the request of that country's government) is to simply do whatever the threateners tell us to do and run away with out tails between our legs.
You would be mistaken. Here's some food for thought: if you reflexively do the opposite of what you think your enemy wants, you are being controlled by your enemy just the same as if you reflexively do the same as what you think your enemy wants.
Thus, as Ron Paul made clear last night, we should get our marching orders not from our enemy, or from the "opposite of" our enemy, but from the Constitution. If there is a threat, have Congress declare war (or issue letters, when appropriate) and go all out to eliminate the specific threat. Once that threat is eliminated, it's time to come home.
As for Paul's position on the events in Iran 50 years ago and Southeast Asia 35 years ago, I'll admit I don't know the entirety of his position. I would bet money that he has never called the Communists "good guys". And I know for a fact that he considers the "root cause" of 9/11 to be 19 insane Muslims from the Middle East, as well as Osama Bin Laden and his various underlings and terrorist supporters. But it does not make one un-American to question why those insane Muslims chose to attack the U.S. rather than, say, Athens or Moscow. The insane Muslims have shown that they're just as happy killing other Muslims as they are traveling halfway around the world to kill us, and I don't have much of a problem letting them do just that.
As for the Monroe Doctrine, its enforcement was based both on history and on the idea of preventing Communism from continuing to establish a foothold on our doorstep. I don't know whether Dr. Paul would have agreed with the military actions Reagan took or not. But any declared war (and I am not as much a stickler for the exact text of a declaration of hostilities as is Dr. Paul), approved by Congress, must be fought by the President as the President sees fit. There's certainly no Constitutional issue there.
I said nothing of the kind.
something changed in your view of the proper role of government
No, something changed in my view of how much silliness is healthy in the face of current events.
when we have a completely open border
I don't think you're going to get any argument there.
Perhaps rather than attempting to wait until every terrorist in the world comes to Iraq and lines up in front of our troops’ weapons, it would make sense to just lock those crazy death cult members out of our country
These aren't mutually exclusive propositions.
at least make an attempt to work with the moderate non-crazy death cult members in regions of the world that spawn the death cult members
We've done and continue to do that.
Fighting in Iraq shows America's ability to project power, take the fight to our enemies and thoroughly eradicate them.
It gives America an operating platform in the middle of the world's most dangerous ideology as surely as our bases in West Germany gave America an operating platform in the middle of the world's most dangerous Cold War ideology.
And, perhaps most importantly, America now has 200,000+ battle hardened veterans and an elite cadre of battle-tested Army and Marine field officers who are fully versed in urban warfare and counterinsurgency doctrine.
No nation on earth's armed forces are as skilled and prepared now as the US and the UKs to meet all threats from conventional and unconventional forces.
This is quite a thread.
The Constitution is not a manual of military strategy. It cannot tell us what foreign policy to pursue or what military strategy to pursue - it leaves these matters to the discretion of Congress and the Executive.
if you reflexively do the opposite of what you think your enemy wants
That's not what the administration is doing.
Al-Qaeda's position: "Remove the heathen crusaders from the Arabian peninsula!"
Ron Paul's position: "Golly, yessirree boss! So sorry we've been bombing you for 10 years! We were asking for 9/11!"
Theoretical person who reflexively does the opposite of what the enemy wants: "Screw you, bin Laden. We are doubling our presence in Saudi Arabia!"
The administration's actual policy: "Our troops are in Saudi Arabia to defend the country from the potential aggression of Saddam Hussein. Given Hussein's recent provocations, his history of funding terror, his refusal to confirm or deny his weapons programs and his habit of firing at our patrols in violation of the treaty he signed with the US, perhaps we should take those troops deployed in Saudi Arabia and bring down Saddam Hussein so we don't need to station troops in Saudi Arabia. Maybe bin Ladin will be pleased with that, maybe he won't. Our first concern is US national security."
Paulnuts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.