Replies

Out of all the various and sometimes fractious factions in the Republican coalition, nothing matches the invective flung at the libertarian wing by the neocon wing. To my knowledge, Ron Paul never has supported foreign aid to anyone. He views it as unconstitutional. This has gotten spun into antisemitism because it would mean ending aid to Israel. I support Israel myself, and don't begrudge aid sent by us to Israel. But, I understand completely where Paul is coming from on this. It's very unfair and has become libelous.

I agree with your take but check out the followers he has inspired. The ones I see on the internet are very anti-Israel. As many are left-libertarians as are right-libertarians. "Stop all foreign aid"--- To a certain extent that is code for "stop aid to Israel". They don't like Israel and have bought into the leftist/Muslim narrative on it

Left-libertarians are a confused bunch as a general rule. How one can be libertarian on the one hand and a near totalitarian statist on the other is a mystery, or should be to anyone with an ounce of logic in their system.

They’ve latched onto Paul because they’re reflexively “anti-war” and perceive him to be as well. In this, they are mistaken. He supported Afghanistan. If the dolts had ever bothered to look at what Paul actually advocates across the board, they’d hate him. They’re nearly the antithesis of one another.

“They don’t like Israel and have bought into the leftist/Muslim narrative on it.”

If you understand the Al Qaeda / Muslim Brotherhood program, you will realize that buying into their narrative implies great joy when the US pulls the plug on support for any of its client states in the historical territories occupied by Islam: whether Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Tunisia, Yemen, Iraq, or traditional NATO ally Turkey. They also have designs on states like Algeria, Libya, and Syria, whose rulers are not congenial to their program. As the US pulls back, AQ and MB influence will grow and their potential for eliminating the secular rulers in the various client states, and those that are secular and less visibly “US pawns” will grow. They’ve made considerable progress in Turkey, and now Egypt, though there is ‘less than meets the eye’ so far in Egypt.

http://www.stratfor.com/node/184957/analysis/20110217-unrest-middle-east-special-report
While the circumstances at first glance appear dire for most of the regimes, each of these states also has unique circumstances. While Tunisia can be considered a largely organic, successful uprising, for most of these states, the regimes retain the tools to suppress dissent, divide the opposition and maintain power. In others, those engaging in the civil unrest are pawns in behind-the-scenes power struggles. In all, the assumed impenetrability of the internal security apparatus and the loyalties and intentions of the army remain decisive factors in determining the direction of the unrest.

http://www.amazon.com/Next-Decade-Where-Weve-Going/dp/0385532946/
The author of the acclaimed New York Times bestseller “The Next 100 Years” now focuses his geopolitical forecasting acumen on the next decade and the imminent events and challenges that will test America and the world, specifically addressing the skills that will be required by the decade’s leaders. The next ten years will be a time of massive transition. The wars in the Islamic world will be subsiding, and terrorism will become something we learn to live with. China will be encountering its crisis. We will be moving from a time when financial crises dominate the world to a time when labor shortages will begin to dominate. The new century will be taking shape in the next decade.