POL: We need more politicians like this guy (warning: strong libertarian leanings)

[cartman]

Here is the transcript of a speech on the House floor by Ron Paul (R-TX). He was elected as a Republican, but it is widely known that he is really a Libertarian. Very well thought out, and he makes a lot of valid, defensible statements. I guess it was way too long, and that's why it didn't get any MSM coverage. I submit for your reading enjoyment, and look forward to the responses.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...6/cr040506.htm

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

April 5, 2006

Iran: The Next Neocon Target

It’s been three years since the U.S. launched its war against Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Of course now almost everybody knows there were no WMDs, and Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States. Though some of our soldiers serving in Iraq still believe they are there because Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, even the administration now acknowledges there was no connection. Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq. The current excuse, also given for staying in Iraq, is to make it a democratic state, friendly to the United States. There are now fewer denials that securing oil supplies played a significant role in our decision to go into Iraq and stay there. That certainly would explain why U.S. taxpayers are paying such a price to build and maintain numerous huge, permanent military bases in Iraq. They’re also funding a new billion dollar embassy- the largest in the world.

The significant question we must ask ourselves is: What have we learned from three years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it appears we have learned absolutely nothing. There still are plenty of administration officials who daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have created. But I wonder: If the past three years were nothing more than a bad dream, and our nation suddenly awakened, how many would, for national security reasons, urge the same invasion? Would we instead give a gigantic sigh of relief that it was only a bad dream, that we need not relive the three-year nightmare of death, destruction, chaos and stupendous consumption of tax dollars. Conceivably we would still see oil prices under $30 a barrel, and most importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. causalities would not have occurred. My guess is that 99% of all Americans would be thankful it was only a bad dream, and would never support the invasion knowing what we know today.

Even with the horrible results of the past three years, Congress is abuzz with plans to change the Iranian government. There is little resistance to the rising clamor for “democratizing” Iran, even though their current president, Mahmoud Almadinejad, is an elected leader. Though Iran is hardly a perfect democracy, its system is far superior to most of our Arab allies about which we never complain. Already the coordinating propaganda has galvanized the American people against Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have had. It’s amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited over the charges levied against Saddam Hussein the Neo-cons are willing to use the same arguments against Iran. It’s frightening to see how easily Congress, the media, and the people accept many of the same arguments against Iran that were used to justify an invasion of Iraq.

Since 2001 we have spent over $300 billion, and occupied two Muslim nations--Afghanistan and Iraq. We’re poorer but certainly not safer for it. We invaded Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, the ring leader behind 9/11. This effort has been virtually abandoned. Even though the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan, most of the country is now occupied and controlled by warlords who manage a drug trade bigger than ever before. Removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan actually served the interests of Iran, the Taliban’s arch enemy, more than our own.

The longtime Neo-con goal to remake Iraq prompted us to abandon the search for Osama bin Laden. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was hyped as a noble mission, justified by misrepresentations of intelligence concerning Saddam Hussein and his ability to attack us and his neighbors. This failed policy has created the current chaos in Iraq-- chaos that many describe as a civil war. Saddam Hussein is out of power and most people are pleased. Yet some Iraqis, who dream of stability, long for his authoritarian rule. But once again, Saddam Hussein’s removal benefited the Iranians, who consider Saddam Hussein an arch enemy.

Our obsession with democracy-- which is clearly conditional, when one looks at our response to the recent Palestinian elections-- will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraq’s election actually leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia.

Talk about unintended consequences! This war has produced chaos, civil war, death and destruction, and huge financial costs. It has eliminated two of Iran’s worst enemies and placed power in Iraq with Iran’s best friends. Even this apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the current march toward a similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take for us to learn from our failures?

Common sense tells us the war in Iraq soon will spread to Iran. Fear of imaginary nuclear weapons or an incident involving Iran-- whether planned or accidental-- will rally the support needed for us to move on Muslim country #3. All the past failures and unintended consequences will be forgotten.

Even with deteriorating support for the Iraq war, new information, well planned propaganda, or a major incident will override the skepticism and heartache of our frustrating fight. Vocal opponents of an attack on Iran again will be labeled unpatriotic, unsupportive of the troops, and sympathetic to Iran’s radicals.

Instead of capitulating to these charges, we should point out that those who maneuver us into war do so with little concern for our young people serving in the military, and theoretically think little of their own children if they have any. It’s hard to conceive that political supporters of the war would consciously claim that a pre-emptive war for regime change, where young people are sacrificed, is only worth it if the deaths and injuries are limited to other people’s children. This, I’m sure, would be denied-- which means their own children are technically available for this sacrifice that is so often praised and glorified for the benefit of the families who have lost so much. If so, they should think more of their own children. If this is not so, and their children are not available for such sacrifice, the hypocrisy is apparent. Remember, most Neo-con planners fall into the category of chicken-hawks.

For the past 3 years it’s been inferred that if one is not in support of the current policy, one is against the troops and supports the enemy. Lack of support for the war in Iraq was said to be supportive of Saddam Hussein and his evil policies. This is an insulting and preposterous argument. Those who argued for the containment of the Soviets were never deemed sympathetic to Stalin or Khrushchev. Lack of support for the Iraq war should never be used as an argument that one was sympathetic to Saddam Hussein. Containment and diplomacy are far superior to confronting a potential enemy, and are less costly and far less dangerous-- especially when there’s no evidence that our national security is being threatened.

Although a large percentage of the public now rejects the various arguments for the Iraq war, 3 years ago they were easily persuaded by the politicians and media to fully support the invasion. Now, after 3 years of terrible pain for so many, even the troops are awakening from their slumber and sensing the fruitlessness of our failing effort. Seventy-two percent of our troops now serving in Iraq say it’s time to come home, yet the majority still cling to the propaganda that we’re there because of 9/11 attacks, something even the administration has ceased to claim. Propaganda is pushed on our troops to exploit their need to believe in a cause that’s worth the risk to life and limb.

I smell an expanded war in the Middle East, and pray that I’m wrong. I sense that circumstances will arise that demand support regardless of the danger and cost. Any lack of support, once again, will be painted as being soft on terrorism and al Qaeda. We will be told we must support Israel, support patriotism, support the troops, and defend freedom. The public too often only smells the stench of war after the killing starts. Public objection comes later on, but eventually it helps to stop the war. I worry that before we can finish the war we’re in and extricate ourselves, the patriotic fervor for expanding into Iran will drown out the cries of, “enough already!”

The agitation and congressional resolutions painting Iran as an enemy about to attack us have already begun. It’s too bad we can’t learn from our mistakes.

This time there will be a greater pretense of an international effort sanctioned by the UN before the bombs are dropped. But even without support from the international community, we should expect the plan for regime change to continue. We have been forewarned that “all options” remain on the table. And there’s little reason to expect much resistance from Congress. So far there’s less resistance expressed in Congress for taking on Iran than there was prior to going into Iraq. It’s astonishing that after three years of bad results and tremendous expense there’s little indication we will reconsider our traditional non-interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, regime change, nation building, policing the world, and protecting “our oil” still constitute an acceptable policy by the leaders of both major parties.

It’s already assumed by many in Washington I talk to that Iran is dead serious about obtaining a nuclear weapon, and is a much more formidable opponent than Iraq. Besides, Mahmoud Almadinjad threatened to destroy Israel and that cannot stand. Washington sees Iran as a greater threat than Iraq ever was, a threat that cannot be ignored.

Iran’s history is being ignored, just as we ignored Iraq’s history. This ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of our recent relationship to Iraq and Iran is required to generate the fervor needed to attack once again a country that poses no threat to us. Our policies toward Iran have been more provocative than those towards Iraq. Yes, President Bush labeled Iran part of the axis of evil and unnecessarily provoked their anger at us. But our mistakes with Iran started a long time before this president took office.

In 1953 our CIA, with help of the British, participated in overthrowing the democratic elected leader, Mohamed Mossedech. We placed the Shah in power. He ruled ruthlessly but protected our oil interests, and for that we protected him-- that is until 1979. We even provided him with Iran’s first nuclear reactor. Evidently we didn’t buy the argument that his oil supplies precluded a need for civilian nuclear energy. From 1953 to 1979 his authoritarian rule served to incite a radical Muslim opposition led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who overthrew the Shah and took our hostages in 1979. This blowback event was slow in coming, but Muslims have long memories. The hostage crisis and overthrow of the Shah by the Ayatollah was a major victory for the radical Islamists. Most Americans either never knew about or easily forgot our unwise meddling in the internal affairs of Iran in 1953.

During the 1980s we further antagonized Iran by supporting the Iraqis in their invasion of Iran. This made our relationship with Iran worse, while sending a message to Saddam Hussein that invading a neighboring country is not all that bad. When Hussein got the message from our State Department that his plan to invade Kuwait was not of much concern to the United States he immediately proceeded to do so. We in a way encouraged him to do it almost like we encouraged him to go into Iran. Of course this time our reaction was quite different, and all of a sudden our friendly ally Saddam Hussein became our arch enemy. The American people may forget this flip-flop, but those who suffered from it never forget. And the Iranians remember well our meddling in their affairs. Labeling the Iranians part of the axis of evil further alienated them and contributed to the animosity directed toward us.

For whatever reasons the Neo-conservatives might give, they are bound and determined to confront the Iranian government and demand changes in its leadership. This policy will further spread our military presence and undermine our security. The sad truth is that the supposed dangers posed by Iran are no more real than those claimed about Iraq. The charges made against Iran are unsubstantiated, and amazingly sound very similar to the false charges made against Iraq. One would think promoters of the war against Iraq would be a little bit more reluctant to use the same arguments to stir up hatred toward Iran. The American people and Congress should be more cautious in accepting these charges at face value. Yet it seems the propaganda is working, since few in Washington object as Congress passes resolutions condemning Iran and asking for UN sanctions against her.

There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran, and no reason to plan and initiate a confrontation with her. There are many reasons not to do so, however.

Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there’s no evidence that she is working on one--only conjecture.

If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries?

If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody-- which would guarantee her own annihilation-- are zero. And the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state terrorist group.

Pakistan has spread nuclear technology throughout the world, and in particular to the North Koreans. They flaunt international restrictions on nuclear weapons. But we reward them just as we reward India.

We needlessly and foolishly threaten Iran even though they have no nuclear weapons. But listen to what a leading Israeli historian, Martin Van Creveld, had to say about this: “Obviously, we don’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and I don’t know if they’re developing them, but if they’re not developing them, they’re crazy.”

There’s been a lot of misinformation regarding Iran’s nuclear program. This distortion of the truth has been used to pump up emotions in Congress to pass resolutions condemning her and promoting UN sanctions.

IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradi has never reported any evidence of “undeclared” sources or special nuclear material in Iran, or any diversion of nuclear material.

We demand that Iran prove it is not in violation of nuclear agreements, which is asking them impossibly to prove a negative. El Baradi states Iran is in compliance with the nuclear NPT required IAEA safeguard agreement.

We forget that the weapons we feared Saddam Hussein had were supplied to him by the U.S., and we refused to believe UN inspectors and the CIA that he no longer had them.

Likewise, Iran received her first nuclear reactor from us. Now we’re hysterically wondering if someday she might decide to build a bomb in self interest.

Anti-Iran voices, beating the drums of confrontation, distort the agreement made in Paris and the desire of Iran to restart the enrichment process. Their suspension of the enrichment process was voluntary, and not a legal obligation. Iran has an absolute right under the NPT to develop and use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and this is now said to be an egregious violation of the NPT. It’s the U.S. and her allies that are distorting and violating the NPT. Likewise our provision of nuclear materials to India is a clear violation of the NPT.

The demand for UN sanctions is now being strongly encouraged by Congress. The “Iran Freedom Support Act,” HR 282, passed in the International Relations Committee; and recently the House passed H Con Res 341, which inaccurately condemned Iran for violating its international nuclear non-proliferation obligations. At present, the likelihood of reason prevailing in Congress is minimal. Let there be no doubt: The Neo-conservative warriors are still in charge, and are conditioning Congress, the media, and the American people for a pre-emptive attack on Iran. Never mind that Afghanistan has unraveled and Iraq is in civil war: serious plans are being laid for the next distraction which will further spread this war in the Middle East. The unintended consequences of this effort surely will be worse than any of the complications experienced in the three-year occupation of Iraq.

Our offer of political and financial assistance to foreign and domestic individuals who support the overthrow of the current Iranian government is fraught with danger and saturated with arrogance. Imagine how American citizens would respond if China supported similar efforts here in the United States to bring about regime change! How many of us would remain complacent if someone like Timothy McVeigh had been financed by a foreign power? Is it any wonder the Iranian people resent us and the attitude of our leaders? Even though El Baradi and his IAEA investigations have found no violations of the NPT-required IAEA safeguards agreement, the Iran Freedom Support Act still demands that Iran prove they have no nuclear weapons-- refusing to acknowledge that proving a negative is impossible.

Let there be no doubt, though the words “regime change” are not found in the bill-- that’s precisely what they are talking about. Neo-conservative Michael Ledeen, one of the architects of the Iraq fiasco, testifying before the International Relations Committee in favor of the IFSA, stated it plainly: “I know some Members would prefer to dance around the explicit declaration of regime change as the policy of this country, but anyone looking closely at the language and context of the IFSA and its close relative in the Senate, can clearly see that this is in fact the essence of the matter. You can’t have freedom in Iran without bringing down the Mullahs.”

Sanctions, along with financial and political support to persons and groups dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government, are acts of war. Once again we’re unilaterally declaring a pre-emptive war against a country and a people that have not harmed us and do not have the capacity to do so. And don’t expect Congress to seriously debate a declaration of war resolution. For the past 56 years Congress has transferred to the executive branch the power to go to war as it pleases, regardless of the tragic results and costs.

Secretary of State Rice recently signaled a sharp shift towards confrontation in Iran policy as she insisted on $75 million to finance propaganda, through TV and radio broadcasts into Iran. She expressed this need because of the so-called “aggressive” policies of the Iranian government. We’re seven thousand miles from home, telling the Iraqis and the Iranians what kind of government they will have, backed up by the use of our military force, and we call them the aggressors. We fail to realize the Iranian people, for whatever faults they may have, have not in modern times aggressed against any neighbor. This provocation is so unnecessary, costly, and dangerous.

Just as the invasion of Iraq inadvertently served the interests of the Iranians, military confrontation with Iran will have unintended consequences. The successful alliance engendered between the Iranians and the Iraqi majority Shia will prove a formidable opponent for us in Iraq as that civil war spreads. Shipping in the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz may well be disrupted by the Iranians in retaliation for any military confrontation. Since Iran would be incapable of defending herself by conventional means, it seems logical that some might resort to a terrorist attack on us. They will not passively lie down, nor can they be destroyed easily.

One of the reasons given for going into Iraq was to secure “our” oil supply. This backfired badly: Production in Iraq is down 50%, and world oil prices have more than doubled to $60 per barrel. Meddling with Iran could easily have a similar result. We could see oil over $120 a barrel and, and $6 gas at the pump. The obsession the Neo-cons have with remaking the Middle East is hard to understand. One thing that is easy to understand is none of those who planned these wars expect to fight in them, nor do they expect their children to die in some IED explosion.

Exactly when an attack will occur is not known, but we have been forewarned more than once that all options remain on the table. The sequence of events now occurring with regards to Iran are eerily reminiscent of the hype prior to our pre-emptive strike against Iraq. We should remember the saying: “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” It looks to me like the Congress and the country is open to being fooled once again.

Interestingly, many early supporters of the Iraq war are now highly critical of the President, having been misled as to reasons for the invasion and occupation. But these same people are only too eager to accept the same flawed arguments for our need to undermine the Iranian government.

The President’s 2006 National Security Strategy, just released, is every bit as frightening as the one released in 2002 endorsing pre-emptive war. In it he claims: “We face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran.” He claims the Iranians have for 20 years hidden key nuclear activities-- though the IAEA makes no such assumptions nor has the Security Council in these 20 years ever sanctioned Iran. The clincher in the National Security Strategy document is if diplomatic efforts fail, confrontation will follow. The problem is the diplomatic effort-- if one wants to use that term-- is designed to fail by demanding the Iranians prove an unproveable negative. The West-- led by the U.S.-- is in greater violation by demanding Iran not pursue any nuclear technology, even peaceful, that the NPT guarantees is their right.

The President states: Iran’s “desire to have a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.” A “desire” is purely subjective, and cannot be substantiated nor disproved. Therefore all that is necessary to justify an attack is if Iran fails to prove it doesn’t have a “desire” to be like the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France, Pakistan, India, and Israel—whose nuclear missiles surround Iran. Logic like this to justify a new war, without the least consideration for a congressional declaration of war, is indeed frightening.

Common sense tells us Congress, especially given the civil war in Iraq and the mess in Afghanistan, should move with great caution in condoning a military confrontation with Iran.


Cause for Concern

Most Americans are uninterested in foreign affairs until we get mired down in a war that costs too much, last too long, and kills too many U.S. troops. Getting out of a lengthy war is difficult, as I remember all too well with Vietnam while serving in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1968. Getting into war is much easier. Unfortunately the Legislative branch of our government too often defers to the Executive branch, and offers little resistance to war plans even with no significant threat to our security. The need to go to war is always couched in patriotic terms and falsehoods regarding an imaginary eminent danger. Not supporting the effort is painted as unpatriotic and wimpish against some evil that’s about to engulf us. The real reason for our militarism is rarely revealed and hidden from the public. Even Congress is deceived into supporting adventurism they would not accept if fully informed.

If we accepted the traditional American and constitutional foreign policy of non-intervention across the board, there would be no temptation to go along with these unnecessary military operations. A foreign policy of intervention invites all kinds of excuses for spreading ourselves around the world. The debate shifts from non-intervention versus interventionism, to where and for what particular reason should we involve ourselves. Most of the time it’s for less than honorable reasons. Even when cloaked in honorable slogans-- like making the world safe for democracy-- the unintended consequences and the ultimate costs cancel out the good intentions.

One of the greatest losses suffered these past 60 years from interventionism becoming an acceptable policy of both major parties is respect for the Constitution. Congress flatly has reneged on its huge responsibility to declare war. Going to war was never meant to be an Executive decision, used indiscriminately with no resistance from Congress. The strongest attempt by Congress in the past 60 years to properly exert itself over foreign policy was the passage of the Foley Amendment, demanding no assistance be given to the Nicaraguan contras. Even this explicit prohibition was flaunted by an earlier administration.

Arguing over the relative merits of each intervention is not a true debate, because it assumes that intervention per se is both moral and constitutional. Arguing for a Granada-type intervention because of its “success,” and against the Iraq war because of its failure and cost, is not enough. We must once again understand the wisdom of rejecting entangling alliances and rejecting nation building. We must stop trying to police the world and instead embrace non-interventionism as the proper, moral, and constitutional foreign policy.

The best reason to oppose interventionism is that people die, needlessly, on both sides. We have suffered over 20,000 American casualties in Iraq already, and Iraq civilian deaths probably number over 100,000 by all reasonable accounts. The next best reason is that the rule of law is undermined, especially when military interventions are carried out without a declaration of war. Whenever a war is ongoing, civil liberties are under attack at home. The current war in Iraq and the misnamed war on terror have created an environment here at home that affords little constitutional protection of our citizen’s rights. Extreme nationalism is common during wars. Signs of this are now apparent.

Prolonged wars, as this one has become, have profound consequences. No matter how much positive spin is put on it, war never makes a society wealthier. World War II was not a solution to the Depression as many claim. If a billion dollars is spent on weapons of war, the GDP records positive growth in that amount. But the expenditure is consumed by destruction of the weapons or bombs it bought, and the real economy is denied $1 billion to produce products that would have raised someone’s standard of living.

Excessive spending to finance the war causes deficits to explode. There are never enough tax dollars available to pay the bills, and since there are not enough willing lenders and dollars available, the Federal Reserve must create enough new money and credit for buying Treasury Bills to prevent interest rates from rising too rapidly. Rising rates would tip off everyone that there are not enough savings or taxes to finance the war. This willingness to print whatever amount of money the government needs to pursue the war is literally inflation. Without a fiat monetary system wars would be very difficult to finance, since the people would never tolerate the taxes required to pay for it. Inflation of the money supply delays and hides the real cost of war. The result of the excessive creation of new money leads to the higher cost of living everyone decries and the Fed denies. Since taxes are not levied, the increase in prices that results from printing too much money is technically the tax required to pay for the war.

The tragedy is that the inflation tax is borne more by the poor and the middle class than the rich. Meanwhile, the well-connected rich, the politicians, the bureaucrats, the bankers, the military industrialists, and the international corporations reap the benefits of war profits.

A sound economic process is disrupted with a war economy and monetary inflation. Strong voices emerge blaming the wrong policies for our problems, prompting an outcry for protectionist legislation. It’s always easier to blame foreign producers and savers for our inflation, lack of savings, excess debt, and loss of industrial jobs. Protectionist measures only make economic conditions worse. Inevitably these conditions, if not corrected, lead to a lower standard of living for most of our citizens.

Careless military intervention is also bad for the civil disturbance that results. The chaos in the streets of America in the 1960s while the Vietnam War raged, aggravated by the draft, was an example of domestic strife caused by an ill-advised unconstitutional war that could not be won. The early signs of civil discord are now present. Hopefully we can extricate ourselves from Iraq and avoid a conflict in Iran before our streets explode as they did in the 60s.

In a way it’s amazing there’s not a lot more outrage expressed by the American people. There’s plenty of complaining but no outrage over policies that are not part of our American tradition. War based on false pretenses, 20,000 American casualties, torture policies, thousands jailed without due process, illegal surveillance of citizens, warrantless searches, and yet no outrage. When the issues come before Congress, Executive authority is maintained or even strengthened while real oversight is ignored.

Though many Americans are starting to feel the economic pain of paying for this war through inflation, the real pain has not yet arrived. We generally remain fat and happy, with a system of money and borrowing that postpones the day of reckoning. Foreigners, in particular the Chinese and Japanese, gladly participate in the charade. We print the money and they take it, as do the OPEC nations, and provide us with consumer goods and oil. Then they loan the money back to us at low interest rates, which we use to finance the war and our housing bubble and excessive consumption. This recycling and perpetual borrowing of inflated dollars allows us to avoid the pain of high taxes to pay for our war and welfare spending. It’s fine until the music stops and the real costs are realized, with much higher interest rates and significant price inflation. That’s when outrage will be heard, and the people will realize we can’t afford the “humanitarianism” of the Neo-conservatives.

The notion that our economic problems are principally due to the Chinese is nonsense. If the protectionists were to have their way, the problem of financing the war would become readily apparent and have immediate ramifications-- none good. Today’s economic problems, caused largely by our funny money system, won’t be solved by altering exchange rates to favor us in the short run, or by imposing high tariffs. Only sound money with real value will solve the problems of competing currency devaluations and protectionist measures.

Economic interests almost always are major reasons for wars being fought. Noble and patriotic causes are easier to sell to a public who must pay and provide cannon fodder to defend the financial interests of a privileged class.

The fact that Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for oil in an attempt to undermine the U.S. dollar is believed by many to be one of the ulterior motives for our invasion and occupation of Iraq. Similarly, the Iranian oil burse now about to open may be seen as a threat to those who depend on maintaining the current monetary system with the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

The theory and significance of “peak oil” is believed to be an additional motivating factor for the U.S. and Great Britain wanting to maintain firm control over the oil supplies in the Middle East. The two nations have been protecting “our” oil interests in the Middle East for nearly a hundred years. With diminishing supplies and expanding demands, the incentive to maintain a military presence in the Middle East is quite strong. Fear of China and Russia moving into this region to assume more control alarms those who don’t understand how a free market can develop substitutes to replace diminishing resources. Supporters of the military effort to maintain control over large regions of the world to protect oil fail to count the real costs once the DOD budget is factored in. Remember, invading Iraq was costly and oil prices doubled. Confrontation in Iran may evolve differently, but we can be sure it will be costly and oil prices will rise.

There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant policy of intervention around the world. They are unpredictable as to time and place. 9/11 was a consequence of our military presence on Muslim holy lands; the Ayatollah Khomeini’s success in taking over the Iranian government in 1979 was a consequence of our CIA overthrowing Mossadech in 1953. These connections are rarely recognized by the American people and never acknowledged by our government. We never seem to learn how dangerous interventionism is to us and to our security.

There are some who may not agree strongly with any of my arguments, and instead believe the propaganda: Iran and her President, Mahmoud Almadinjad, are thoroughly irresponsible and have threatened to destroy Israel. So all measures must be taken to prevent Iran from getting nukes-- thus the campaign to intimidate and confront Iran.

First, Iran doesn’t have a nuke and is nowhere close to getting one, according to the CIA. If they did have one, using it would guarantee almost instantaneous annihilation by Israel and the United States. Hysterical fear of Iran is way out of proportion to reality. With a policy of containment, we stood down and won the Cold War against the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and missiles. If you’re looking for a real kook with a bomb to worry about, North Korea would be high on the list. Yet we negotiate with Kim Jong Il. Pakistan has nukes and was a close ally of the Taliban up until 9/11. Pakistan was never inspected by the IAEA as to their military capability. Yet we not only talk to her, we provide economic assistance-- though someday Musharraf may well be overthrown and a pro-al Qaeda government put in place. We have been nearly obsessed with talking about regime change in Iran, while ignoring Pakistan and North Korea. It makes no sense and it’s a very costly and dangerous policy.

The conclusion we should derive from this is simple: It’s in our best interest to pursue a foreign policy of non-intervention. A strict interpretation of the Constitution mandates it. The moral imperative of not imposing our will on others, no matter how well intentioned, is a powerful argument for minding our own business. The principle of self-determination should be respected. Strict non-intervention removes the incentives for foreign powers and corporate interests to influence our policies overseas. We can’t afford the cost that intervention requires, whether through higher taxes or inflation. If the moral arguments against intervention don’t suffice for some, the practical arguments should.

Intervention just doesn’t work. It backfires and ultimately hurts American citizens both at home and abroad. Spreading ourselves too thin around the world actually diminishes our national security through a weakened military. As the superpower of the world, a constant interventionist policy is perceived as arrogant, and greatly undermines our ability to use diplomacy in a positive manner.

Conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and many of today’s liberals have all at one time or another endorsed a less interventionist foreign policy. There’s no reason a coalition of these groups might not once again present the case for a pro-American, non-militant, non-interventionist foreign policy dealing with all nations. A policy of trade and peace, and a willingness to use diplomacy, is far superior to the foreign policy that has evolved over the past 60 years.

It’s time for a change.

[Riggins44]

I believe Ron Paul is one of the few people in congress that still values the ideas behind the Constitution. There's some website that keeps score of voting records and gives a scorecard for either less government or more government based on their votes. He's always voting for less.

hxxp://www.trimonline.org/bulletin/108-5/texas/TX14.pdf

[NoMyths]

What an impressive speech.

The part of me that still believes we have a chance to avoid disaster hearkens to such a call. But the larger part of me has seen nothing over the last several years to indicate that we will.

[ISiddiqui]

I always liked Paul. I don't agree with everything he believes in, but he always has seemed very moral and interested in doing what he believes is best for the country. And he seems like a person who would actually admit he was wrong (can't we find a politician who will just say "I'm sorry" when he does something wrong and actually mean it?)

[dawgfan]

Wow. Powerful speech, and I'd be hard-pressed to disagree with any of it.

[rexallllsc]

How the hell did a guy like this get elected?

Impressive.

[Anthony]

great speech. we need more like him. i myself have realized i'm a libertarian and i agree w/ all ideas he touched on.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

For anyone who likes that speech, have a look at this one. It's another Ron Paul speech that really digs into his monetary and inflation concerns, tying them broadly to the war on terror. He is very much into the Von Mises, hard currency strain of libertarianism (see www.mises.org). It's really interesting stuff. I tend the find the Mises Institute stuff to go a little overboard (it seems the sky is always falling for them), but they have some pretty strong points, and I don't think they're entirely wrong. Paul is interesting guy (and it is indeed remarkable that he has managed to get elected). He, like the Mises folks, tends to take his conclusions too far (IMHO), but he's worth listening to, and it would be nice to his ideas more broadly discussed.

[JPhillips]

I may agree with some of Paul's rants, but the gold standard stuff is just lunacy.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

How the hell did a guy like this get elected?

Impressive.

By joining a major political party. I recall that he ran for president as a libertarian many moons ago.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

By joining a major political party. I recall that he ran for president as a libertarian many moons ago.

He was the Libertarian nominee in 1988. He was elected to Congress under the Republican banner before that. In fact, when he stepped down from Congress the first time in 1984 to return to medical practice, his seat was taken by none other than Tom DeLay. He ran again for Congress in 1996, against the wishes of the Republican party. They actively campaigned against him, supporting instead the incumbent rep, who was elected as a Democrat, but switched after the election to the Republican party. He won that election, and has held the seat ever since.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by cartman

He was the Libertarian nominee in 1988. He was elected to Congress under the Republican banner before that. In fact, when he stepped down from Congress the first time in 1984 to return to medical practice, his seat was taken by none other than Tom DeLay. He ran again for Congress in 1996, against the wishes of the Republican party. They actively campaigned against him, supporting instead the incumbent rep, who was elected as a Democrat, but switched after the election to the Republican party. He won that election, and has held the seat ever since.

Interesting story--I wonder how many other stealth libertarians are in congress now.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Interesting story--I wonder how many other stealth libertarians are in congress now.

The answer: Not enough

[Greyroofoo]

If this guy ran for the white house I might actually vote republican

[duckman]

Excellent speech. I've been shifting to a more libertarian (if not full-blown already) over the past 18 months. A lot of it is that I just believe in freedom and that is what this party uses as its banner.

[Dutch]

I found the speech rather typical anti-Bush. Common these days? Yes, of course. But logical or well thought out? Not really.

Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq.

We have gone over this many times. Remember, while WMD were not found, and it was embarrassing to the world's intel community, but we would still believe today that Iraq had hidden WMD's if we didn't get him out. 1991 Cease Fire agreement was broken by Iraq nearly everyday as they fired on coaltion aircraft defending the Kurds and Shia populations. 17 UN resolutions violated. Lawless territories in which Al Qaeda roamed unhampered by Saddam Hussein. The list is not as impressive as if the WMD's were found, but despite the revisionism of history that I lived through, I still support the end result. I wish we had the foresight as a world community to rid Iraq of Saddam in 1991 to be honest. That was the big mistake that led to Gulf War II.

If the past three years were nothing more than a bad dream, and our nation suddenly awakened, how many would, for national security reasons, urge the same invasion?

The biggest argument the opposition has of the Iraq invasion is WMD's. None of the rest of the above mentioned reasons are questioned, only forgotten. What this dream sequence fails to articulate is that WMD's would still exist today in Iraq if it weren't for the war. The Intelligence communities would still be certain their facts were right. Saddam would still be touting his arsenal to his generals and towards his local opponents. And would be more than willing to say whatever he wanted, so long as US troops weren't mobilized in force on his borders.

Since 2001 we have spent over $300 billion, and occupied two Muslim nations--Afghanistan and Iraq. We’re poorer but certainly not safer for it. We invaded Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, the ring leader behind 9/11. This effort has been virtually abandoned. Even though the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan, most of the country is now occupied and controlled by warlords who manage a drug trade bigger than ever before. Removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan actually served the interests of Iran, the Taliban’s arch enemy, more than our own.

This more than ever leads me to now understand that "occupy" no longer has a positive cannotation to it. When we "occupied" Germany, it was a good thing. Now, when we "occupy" a nation it is meant as a slight. We did not "occupy" Iraq and Afghanistan to be mean to them. We did it to remove rogue regimes and stick around to help unstable free governments form and grow. To suggest we are their as oppressive occupiers is disingenuous.

While it would have been nice to capture Osama Bin Laden, certainly this man isn't suggesting that the Al Qaeda would have folded upon his capture? What planet is he living on? And the Taliban is being touted as a government that could "control the drug trade" better than the new goverment? That's his reason we shouldn't have invaded? The Taliban was working hand and supporting the training efforts of the people who slammed those planes filled with Americans into the WTC. And he blames America for the Afghan drug trade problem and could care less about 9/11? What a piece of shit this guy is.

Our obsession with democracy-- which is clearly conditional, when one looks at our response to the recent Palestinian elections-- will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraq’s election actually leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia.

This guy thinks that if we want to "spread democracy" to one country, we should spread it to all countries....right now. I will never ever ever vote for a guy who thinks like that.

This ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of our recent relationship to Iraq and Iran is required to generate the fervor needed to attack once again a country that poses no threat to us. Our policies toward Iran have been more provocative than those towards Iraq. Yes, President Bush labeled Iran part of the axis of evil and unnecessarily provoked their anger at us.

Bush labelled Iran part of the axis of evil (primarily for it's massive support for terror, he didn't just pull the name out of a hat). And that statement, made once, 5 years ago threw Iran into an uncontrollable pitch towards anti-Americanism. Yet, if they acquire nuclear weapons, it would take an American first strike for them to unleash their fury? That's completely illogical. Either they are stable or they are not.

Vocal opponents of an attack on Iran again will be labeled unpatriotic, unsupportive of the troops, and sympathetic to Iran’s radicals.

This again is mischaracterizing Iraq and Iran as being at the same place and the same time with relation to when military force is neccessary. Everybody is saying we need to work with Iran to stop their intentions to proliferate nuclear weapons on this planet. Bush has asked France and Germany and Russia to take the lead. And he's preparing to go back to the United Nations if these nations say that Iran is unwavering from their stance.

*****

I guess it goes without saying, but I disagree with this guys assessment, almost in full.

Now, the end result....will the overthrow of the rogue governments in Iraq and Afghanistan be a success? Maybe, maybe not. I characterize these moves as risks. Calculated risks that I believe needed to be made. If it doesn't work out and their respective governments are overthrown with rogue states, well, the worst that will happen in defeat is we end up back where we started.

But if we succeed...something this speech writer doesn't address...it will be a great success story. I believe we owe it to our troops to give them credit enough to stay the course in establishing two brand new armies and give our new friends in Iraq and Afghanistan the same respect to continue to plant the roots of self-responsability and self-determination that our men and women have so fought for them to enjoy.

Now is not the time to quit. Now is not the time to run. Our military soldiers aren't finished. And the Iraqi and Afghan people aren't giving up either. Not by a long shot.

Forgive me for any spelling and grammar mistakes, I didn't proof read my response.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

We have gone over this many times. Remember, while WMD were not found, and it was embarrassing to the world's intel community,

You mean Bush. It was embarassing to Bush. The world had this thing called a 'weapons inspector' whose job it was to find weapons. He didn't find any. Surprise, there were none. You probably don't remember most of the world joining us on our grand quest, and that is because they didn't believe our bullshit.

Originally Posted by Dutch

IThe biggest argument the opposition has of the Iraq invasion is WMD's.

That, and the huge colossal failure that the occupation has been.

Originally Posted by Dutch

Bush labelled Iran part of the axis of evil (primarily for it's massive support for terror, he didn't just pull the name out of a hat). And that statement, made once, 5 years ago threw Iran into an uncontrollable pitch towards anti-Americanism. Yet, if they acquire nuclear weapons, it would take an American first strike for them to unleash their fury? That's completely illogical. Either they are stable or they are not.

Logic is not your strong suit Dutch, best to refrain from it.

Voting for anti-American candidates /= willing to nuke somebody

And nevermind the fact that we cut off all diplomatic relations to them, invaded their neighbor in a war of aggression, and are openly considering a first strike nuclear attack on them. No, that doesn't influence the anti-Americanism at all. Not in Dutch World.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by sabotai

The answer: Not enough

Took the words right out my mouth. This is why I have advocated voting for those in Congress with strong libertarian-leanings (small "l") as oppose to the political party (big "L"). Strong libertarians can came come from both of the big, corrupt parties (like the late Sen. Proxmire, D-Wisc) but they will be drowned out status quo of those in power of the party and those wanting to obtain power for the party.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Logic is not your strong suit Dutch, best to refrain from it.

Voting for anti-American candidates /= willing to nuke somebody

WTF are you talking about?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I found the speech rather typical anti-Bush. Common these days? Yes, of course. But logical or well thought out? Not really.

You lose debate points right off the bat for this. With this statement, you pretty much invalidate any points you bring up later.

We have gone over this many times. Remember, while WMD were not found, and it was embarrassing to the world's intel community, but we would still believe today that Iraq had hidden WMD's if we didn't get him out. 1991 Cease Fire agreement was broken by Iraq nearly everyday as they fired on coaltion aircraft defending the Kurds and Shia populations. 17 UN resolutions violated. Lawless territories in which Al Qaeda roamed unhampered by Saddam Hussein. The list is not as impressive as if the WMD's were found, but despite the revisionism of history that I lived through, I still support the end result. I wish we had the foresight as a world community to rid Iraq of Saddam in 1991 to be honest. That was the big mistake that led to Gulf War II.

Your statements themselves are selective, revisionist history. The intelligence community had evidence both for and against the possession of WMDs. The UN violations were never the primary reason for the attack. They were used as a support, but the imminent threat of WMDs was the impetus for the attack. Wasn't it Condolezza Rice who said "We don't have time to wait for the results of the inspections. We don't want the evidence to be a mushroom cloud."?

The biggest argument the opposition has of the Iraq invasion is WMD's. None of the rest of the above mentioned reasons are questioned, only forgotten. What this dream sequence fails to articulate is that WMD's would still exist today in Iraq if it weren't for the war. The Intelligence communities would still be certain their facts were right. Saddam would still be touting his arsenal to his generals and towards his local opponents. And would be more than willing to say whatever he wanted, so long as US troops weren't mobilized in force on his borders.

As above, there was disagreement in the state of the WMDs in Iraq. It appears that any reports that there were no, or severely diminished capacities, were either discredited or marginalized. Example: the evolving Valerie Plame scenario. A review of Middle Eastern history shows that projecting a stong image for a leader is very important. Saddam's boasts of having all of these weapons was a "poker bluff". And he got called on it. Iran is doing something very similar right now, with their recent announcements of newly developed "super weapons", like a supersonic torpedo and a radar evading missile.

This more than ever leads me to now understand that "occupy" no longer has a positive cannotation to it. When we "occupied" Germany, it was a good thing. Now, when we "occupy" a nation it is meant as a slight. We did not "occupy" Iraq and Afghanistan to be mean to them. We did it to remove rogue regimes and stick around to help unstable free governments form and grow. To suggest we are their as oppressive occupiers is disingenuous.

I think there is a difference. In Europe, we had the Marshall Plan, the delineated how the reconstruction was going to go forward, and we had enough troops to keep and then remake the peace. We have neither right now in Iraq. We were making great strides in Afghanistan, but we are suffering a regression there as well. I feel that your initial statement about the lack of clear thought in the speech clouded your analysis as well.

While it would have been nice to capture Osama Bin Laden, certainly this man isn't suggesting that the Al Qaeda would have folded upon his capture? What planet is he living on? And the Taliban is being touted as a government that could "control the drug trade" better than the new goverment? That's his reason we shouldn't have invaded? The Taliban was working hand and supporting the training efforts of the people who slammed those planes filled with Americans into the WTC. And he blames America for the Afghan drug trade problem and could care less about 9/11? What a piece of shit this guy is.

No, he's not suggesting that Al Qaeda would fold if Bin Laden was captured. You would like to have him think that, because that would then fit your view. But if taking out the Taliban and dealing with Al Qaeda in Afganistan was the mission, why did we basically abort the mission to go to Iraq? And didn't the Bush administration provide anti-drug money to the Taliban in the Spring of 2001 to help eradicate poppy fields? By your logic, it wouldn't be considered a stretch that some of that money made it into the hands of the hijackers, thus making the Bush administration accessory to the crime. Please point out to me where he says he could care less about 9/11. That is nowhere in the speech, and is a point you are again making up to fit in with your view.

This guy thinks that if we want to "spread democracy" to one country, we should spread it to all countries....right now. I will never ever ever vote for a guy who thinks like that.

That was the view of the neo-cons in the Bush administration. Remember Wolfowitz making claims that once Saddam was gone, the Iraqis would be throwing rose petals at our feet, and all of the other countries of the Middle East would topple like dominos and embrace democracy? I guess by your statement then that you could never vote for Bush.

Bush labelled Iran part of the axis of evil (primarily for it's massive support for terror, he didn't just pull the name out of a hat). And that statement, made once, 5 years ago threw Iran into an uncontrollable pitch towards anti-Americanism. Yet, if they acquire nuclear weapons, it would take an American first strike for them to unleash their fury? That's completely illogical. Either they are stable or they are not.

So, up until 5 years ago, when they were labelled as part of the Axis of Evil, they were NOT Anti-american? Your argument loses validity right there. As Rep. Paul stated, the anti-American feelings can be traced back as far as the 1950s. It is not illogical for them to have defensive nuclear weapons. It is just not logical to fit into your view. They understand the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. They know that if they use nukes, they will be retailiated against and wiped off the face of the Earth. This goes back to my earlier statement about projecting strength and saving face as being key to Middle Eastern leaders. While I wouldn't be happy with the Iranians possesing a nuke, I'm much more worried about North Korea having them. North Korea has absolutely nothing to lose at this point.

This again is mischaracterizing Iraq and Iran as being at the same place and the same time with relation to when military force is neccessary. Everybody is saying we need to work with Iran to stop their intentions to proliferate nuclear weapons on this planet. Bush has asked France and Germany and Russia to take the lead. And he's preparing to go back to the United Nations if these nations say that Iran is unwavering from their stance.

That is maybe because Bush learned something from the first time around regarding Iraq? Why else would he consult with an organization that he pretty much dismissed out of hand in the build up to Iraq?

I guess it goes without saying, but I disagree with this guys assessment, almost in full.

Now, the end result....will the overthrow of the rogue governments in Iraq and Afghanistan be a success? Maybe, maybe not. I characterize these moves as risks. Calculated risks that I believe needed to be made. If it doesn't work out and their respective governments are overthrown with rogue states, well, the worst that will happen in defeat is we end up back where we started.

But if we succeed...something this speech writer doesn't address...it will be a great success story. I believe we owe it to our troops to give them credit enough to stay the course in establishing two brand new armies and give our new friends in Iraq and Afghanistan the same respect to continue to plant the roots of self-responsability and self-determination that our men and women have so fought for them to enjoy.

Now is not the time to quit. Now is not the time to run. Our military soldiers aren't finished. And the Iraqi and Afghan people aren't giving up either. Not by a long shot.

Forgive me for any spelling and grammar mistakes, I didn't proof read my response.

Well, the purpose of the speech wasn't to address long term success in Iraq or Afghanistan. I see the speech as a calling out of the neo-con agenda. I see it as a warning as to why would we, or should we, be actively planning an attack on Iran, while we still have our plate full militarily with the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Agree or not, I think the best outcome of this speech would be that it stimulates debate. That is something that has been lacking for too long in the political world. Almost everying has boiled down to talking points and automatically being for or against something based on if a R or a D is associated.

[Buccaneer]

Someone with strong libertarian leanings would also rail against liberal govts and their socialistic leanings (which is, by definition, the opposite of libertarianism), as much as railing against the neo-cons. I think some are forgetting that tearing down the neo-cons positions does not mean that one would gravitate towards the socialistic positions. In fact, I would argue, it would mean moving more away from it.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Someone with strong libertarian leanings would also rail against liberal govts and their socialistic leanings (which is, by definition, the opposite of libertarianism), as much as railing against the neo-cons. I think some are forgetting that tearing down the neo-cons positions does not mean that one would gravitate towards the socialistic positions. In fact, I would argue, it would mean moving more away from it.

Exactly. That is the dilemma that is facing the Republican party entering the mid-terms. There seem to be three camps. The biggest camp by far is the neo-con camp. They control the White House, and most of the senior leadership on the Hill, if not entrenched in this camp, has hitched their horse to it. The next biggest camp are the fiscal conservatives. They have been cut off at the knees by the out of control spending by the camp currently in power. The final, and by far the smallest group are the libertarians. They are also fiscal conservatives, but for the most part are not social conservatives.

The two other camps have come to hate with a passion the neo-con camp. They see them as sell outs to the traditional tenets of fiscal conservatism, doling out cash to their interestes to keep themselves in power. But, because of the power of the neo-con group, they have had to keep themselves in an unsteady alliance because there really isn't any other option for them. They aren't going to run as Democrats, and ballot laws around the country make it extremely difficult to run as an Independent or 3rd party.

It will be interesting to see how the power base of the groups interact approaching the mid-terms, and seeing what happens in after the elections.

[Buccaneer]

I disagree in that the neo-cons appears to have "by far" the most power, it's just what they media likes to portray at the expense of others. But power is given by the voters and they are not the majority by any means. I would argue that the so-called "religious right" is not part of the neo-con camp. I think the neo-cons want you to believe that (to justify their power) but in reality, many in my circle of evangelical christians (in the most evangelical christian city in the country) do not like power of the neo-cons (too much like the Pharisees). I would go as far as saying that a majority of "religious right" would have strong libertarian leanings because they believe the power lies with "charity at home" and affecting those within our sphere of influence. I realize that is not the perception out there (mainly perpetuated by those that do not truly understanding those of faith) and want to find a nice pigeon-hole. I think history will treat the neo-con movement as an aberation and an interesting one at that.

[ice4277]

From a personal standpoint, these days I tend to disagree with Bush et al about 80-85% of the time and am beginning to feel disgusted with most of his policies and initiatives. However, I feel the same about Democrats about 90-95% of the time. I know a lot of people that feel the same way as well about both parties. Its really a shame that people are generally compelled to now vote and side wiht the side that they disagree with the least, rather than agree with the most.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I disagree in that the neo-cons appears to have "by far" the most power, it's just what they media likes to portray at the expense of others. But power is given by the voters and they are not the majority by any means. I would argue that the so-called "religious right" is not part of the neo-con camp. I think the neo-cons want you to believe that (to justify their power) but in reality, many in my circle of evangelical christians (in the most evangelical christian city in the country) do not like power of the neo-cons (too much like the Pharisees). I would go as far as saying that a majority of "religious right" would have strong libertarian leanings because they believe the power lies with "charity at home" and affecting those within our sphere of influence. I realize that is not the perception out there (mainly perpetuated by those that do not truly understanding those of faith) and want to find a nice pigeon-hole. I think history will treat the neo-con movement as an aberation and an interesting one at that.

I would have to respectfully disagree with this. I'll admit that the neo-cons are not the greatest number in the Republican party, but they have wielded a power much greater than their numbers suggest. They have had a stranglehold on foreign policy since 2001, with the exact path they were going to take laid out step by step in the late 90's by PNAC. They have effectively marginalized the people and ideals associated with the fiscal conservative/small goverment mindset brought in by the Newt Gingrich led Republicans from the 1994 election.

I think you are absolutely correct in the wariness evangelical christians have now with the neo-cons. Many of the neo-cons wrapped themselves in the cloaks of evangelicalism, but have now shown their true colors. They exploited the active political base of this group for their own purposes. The neo-cons forged alliances with many of the religious power brokers in the country to help form an energized base. To me, the most blatant example of this was Tom DeLay. While not a neo-con, per se, he rode the wave of power and exploited it to his full political advantage, trying to show himself as an enlightened man of Christ, while being a pure disciple of Machiavelli behind the scenes. Another key example was Bush himself during his 2000 presidential campaign. He preached that he would be a compassionate conservative, but veered sharply away from that as soon as he took office.

I do agree with your assessment as well that the neo-con movement will not be judged kindly by history. Many of the key players have already started to distance themselves from the group. They couldn't get a pure version of their vision elected, so they co-opted as many concepts as they could to form a palatable platform, but once they got into power, they made a decision to do anything and everything they could to keep themselves in power.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I would go as far as saying that a majority of "religious right" would have strong libertarian leanings because they believe the power lies with "charity at home" and affecting those within our sphere of influence.

The Weekly Standard (or at least Ross Douthat & Reihan Salam) seems to think the opposite. They apparently believe that the Religious Right is basically composed of Democrats who hate abortion and gay people. Their prescription for the Republican party: government big enough to do FDR proud. The New Republican Party, what's not to love...

Originally Posted by the article

This is the Republican party of today--an increasingly working-class party, dependent for its power on supermajorities of the white working class vote, and a party whose constituents are surprisingly comfortable with bad-but-popular liberal ideas like raising the minimum wage, expanding clumsy environmental regulations, or hiking taxes on the wealthy to fund a health care entitlement. To borrow a phrase from Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, Republicans are now "the party of Sam's Club, not just the country club."

[Daimyo]

I'm not libertarian by any stretch and I think many of their ideas taken to the logical ends would be pretty damaging (not everything should be privatized). Having said that I so much prefer them to the neo-cons. At least the libertatians make a coherent argument and I can see plenty of room for reasonable people to take the position.

[Daimyo]

DOLA, and I would think the "pure", principled libertarians (as opposed to people who just want to save money on taxes) would rather side with liberals than neo-cons give the unpleasant choice of one or the other. Both end up with big government, but at least liberals are responsible and fund it appropriately.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Took the words right out my mouth. This is why I have advocated voting for those in Congress with strong libertarian-leanings (small "l") as oppose to the political party (big "L"). Strong libertarians can came come from both of the big, corrupt parties (like the late Sen. Proxmire, D-Wisc) but they will be drowned out status quo of those in power of the party and those wanting to obtain power for the party.

Yeah, I'm starting to see it that way too. In the past, I still had too much "youth rebellion" and "fight the power" in me and tried the best I could to vote for 3rd party people (or just vote for the minority party to try to cause gridlock, regardless of their politics) Unfortunately, that's just not practical. The "old realist" is starting to surface and I'm realizing I have to try to do my part to push both parties the best I can towards libertarian ideas by voting for those with libertarian records.

I don't like getting old. I liked being irresponsible, rebellious and feeling invincible! This sucks!

[Vinatieri for Prez]

A few thoughts.

1- Good article, stimulates the discussion that should be happening

2-Dutch is in denial, and floating the rhetoric that everybody believed Iraq had WMDs and/or their use was imminent. This is just false. The simple fact is that many of the allies that have stood by the U.S.'s side for decades (including supporting the invasion of Afghanistan) listened to the arguments that there was an imminent threat of WMDs and disagreed including formally protesting the war. They did not support the invasion of Iraq. When put under a microscope, the evidence failed for many and did not justify invasion. And before the France insults come (they're weak) or Germany (because they supposedly had interests in Iraq they wanted to hide), I will point out that other nations not only did not support the invasion but formally protested it, such as Canada, New Zealand, and Sweden. At least in my memory, Canada has never departed from the U.S. in foreign military affairs. That protest alone convinced me from the outset that the argument for war was weak at best.

3. Dutch also fails to take into account the ramifications of such an intervention (economic, political, military), which of course is what the whole article is about. His statement that "If it doesn't work out and their respective governments are overthrown with rogue states, well, the worst that will happen in defeat is we end up back where we started." No, the U.S. already is worse off than where it started, and even more so if the new governments fail -- diplomacy capital, security and the economy have and will take major hits.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

WTF are you talking about?

Your argument is that they vote for anti-American candidates, so they will be willing to launch a nuclear first strike. That's not logical.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Your argument is that they vote for anti-American candidates, so they will be willing to launch a nuclear first strike. That's not logical.

Actually i find it quite so, as any person must know a nuclear attack on Isreal will result in US action against them

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Actually i find it quite so, as any person must know a nuclear attack on Isreal will result in US action against them

Ah, but Iran is not a great fool, so he can clearly not choose the wine in front of Israel. But Israel must have known Iran was not a great fool, Israel would have counted on it, so Iran can clearly not choose the wine in front of himself.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Actually i find it quite so, as any person must know a nuclear attack on Isreal will result in US action against them

That doesn't make any sense.

Because uranium comes from Australia (the world's largest reserves, ironically enough), as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them as Isreal is not trusted by Iran so Iran can clearly not choose the wine in front of Isreal.

[Shkspr]

So, you're saying that we should never get involved in a land war in Asia, right?

[Dutch]

1- Good article, stimulates more rock throwing at Dutch.

No shit.

2-Dutch is in denial, and floating the rhetoric that everybody believed Iraq had WMDs and/or their use was imminent. This is just false. The simple fact is that many of the allies that have stood by the U.S.'s side for decades (including supporting the invasion of Afghanistan) listened to the arguments that there was an imminent threat of WMDs and disagreed including formally protesting the war. They did not support the invasion of Iraq. When put under a microscope, the evidence failed for many and did not justify invasion. And before the France insults come (they're weak) or Germany (because they supposedly had interests in Iraq they wanted to hide), I will point out that other nations not only did not support the invasion but formally protested it, such as Canada, New Zealand, and Sweden. At least in my memory, Canada has never departed from the U.S. in foreign military affairs. That protest alone convinced me from the outset that the argument for war was weak at best.

I did not say everybody believe Iraq had WMD's. I would say that most intelligence agencies and world leaders subscribed to the notion. The week before the attack? Maybe not. But they sure as hell weren't raising much of a stink during the Clinton administration. I'd say the suggestion was compounded during the 90's. We've all seen the quotables from world leaders during the 90's.

3. Dutch also fails to take into account the ramifications of such an intervention (economic, political, military), which of course is what the whole article is about. His statement that "If it doesn't work out and their respective governments are overthrown with rogue states, well, the worst that will happen in defeat is we end up back where we started." No, the U.S. already is worse off than where it started, and even more so if the new governments fail -- diplomacy capital, security and the economy have and will take major hits.

I have always stated it was a risk. If something is risky, that means there are two possible outcomes. One good and one bad. I am not so bold as to say the outcome will be a success. But I am also asking that this speech writer not be so bold as to say the outcome has already failed. Not while our men and women are still there and the Iraqi and Afghan people are all still working very hard to make the outcome a success.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

but at least liberals are responsible and fund it appropriately.

No to the first part and for the second part, more funding means more waste and the same inefficient results. That's a worse alternative.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Yeah, I'm starting to see it that way too. In the past, I still had too much "youth rebellion" and "fight the power" in me and tried the best I could to vote for 3rd party people (or just vote for the minority party to try to cause gridlock, regardless of their politics) Unfortunately, that's just not practical. The "old realist" is starting to surface and I'm realizing I have to try to do my part to push both parties the best I can towards libertarian ideas by voting for those with libertarian records.

I don't like getting old. I liked being irresponsible, rebellious and feeling invincible! This sucks!

It is sad that you and I are so opposites on matters of faith else we would become blood brothers.

[Young Drachma]

I've voted 3rd party in the last two Presidential elections and prefer to vote Libertarian more, though that party itself has all sorts of weirdos inside, you never can be sure what we're getting until you hear them talking or read what they've said before.

That said, I've found that according to one of those lengthy political test deals to match your views with people in Congress that I most identified politically with New Hampshire's reps.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

It is sad that you and I are so opposites on matters of faith else we would become blood brothers.

I smell a sitcom!

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

No to the first part and for the second part, more funding means more waste and the same inefficient results. That's a worse alternative.

Just the other day you were talking about huge government interation in developing and third world countries:

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...7&postcount=31

What makes government efficient for them and ineffecient for us? Furthermore, it is undeniable that welfare programs have decreased poverty, and SS has decreased elderly poverty, all while making the US an economic superpower. In your opinion, could they have been handled better by charities, or is reducing poverty at home not a worthy goal?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Furthermore, it is undeniable that welfare programs have decreased poverty, and SS has decreased elderly poverty, all while making the US an economic superpower. In your opinion, could they have been handled better by charities, or is reducing poverty at home not a worthy goal?

If you've read much of Bucc's political posts, you'd know that his answer to this is that yes, it would be more efficient to do this work through charities. I don't buy it personally.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

If you've read much of Bucc's political posts, you'd know that his answer to this is that yes, it would be more efficient to do this work through charities. I don't buy it personally.

Then what I don't get, is that charities were around well before any of the major social programs in this country, so if they could do a better job, why weren't they doing it before?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Then what I don't get, is that charities were around well before any of the major social programs in this country, so if they could do a better job, why weren't they doing it before?

They were, it was a different scale of meeting necessities as oppose to expecting more than that. But in the time period you are talking about, you are talking about a different living standard than today. In most small towns as well as in the cities, you had people taking care of their own. Families stayed together even they grow old. Some of the problems came from the crushing amount of immigration into the cities and while the local charities, churches and ethnic organizations did what they could (despite racism and prejudical attitudes), the economic means were not there to help on a large scale (esp. during the panics and depressions that were happening each decade). The greatest periods of charitable standards (including taking care of the children and elderly) were right after the two world wars, when the economic booms kept up with the standards of living. The problem as we got into the 50s was that the so-called standard of living kept going up on paper but not in actuality. Just take a look at what passes for the poverty rates in the past 40 years. Relatively speaking, today's poverty rate would have been pretty good back in the days when families, churches and communities were taking more care of their own but they were handling it at a lower expectation level, not at a level that demanded more than necessary, if that makes any sense.

But that's not the point. I can guarantee you that if you gave $1000 to your local ecumenical ministries, that would make more of a difference in the lives of local families than anything else. And what if more and more people did that instead of wasting money on stuff they really don't need? What if more people had the attitude that regardless of what the civil govts do or don't do, you will still make a difference in people's lives? Or would you still come up with f'n excuses of why you can't and why you expect the govt to do more?

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

They were, it was a different scale of meeting necessities as oppose to expecting more than that. But in the time period you are talking about, you are talking about a different living standard than today. In most small towns as well as in the cities, you had people taking care of their own. Families stayed together even they grow old. Some of the problems came from the crushing amount of immigration into the cities and while the local charities, churches and ethnic organizations did what they could (despite racism and prejudical attitudes), the economic means were not there to help on a large scale (esp. during the panics and depressions that were happening each decade). The greatest periods of charitable standards (including taking care of the children and elderly) were right after the two world wars, when the economic booms kept up with the standards of living. The problem as we got into the 50s was that the so-called standard of living kept going up on paper but not in actuality. Just take a look at what passes for the poverty rates in the past 40 years. Relatively speaking, today's poverty rate would have been pretty good back in the days when families, churches and communities were taking more care of their own but they were handling it at a lower expectation level, not at a level that demanded more than necessary, if that makes any sense.

But that's not the point. I can guarantee you that if you gave $1000 to your local ecumenical ministries, that would make more of a difference in the lives of local families than anything else. And what if more and more people did that instead of wasting money on stuff they really don't need? What if more people had the attitude that regardless of what the civil govts do or don't do, you will still make a difference in people's lives? Or would you still come up with f'n excuses of why you can't and why you expect the govt to do more?

I agree that local work through charitable organizations would be much better, but the problem is, most people don't have the type of attitude like you mention. If the government wasn't taking that money, most people would probably keep it for themselves, at least some of it. And I can't really see how you could 'force' people to give to a charity.

[Buccaneer]

people don't have the type of attitude like you mention

It's about changing attitudes one person at a time. I agree that it is a challenge in today's insanely materialistic, consumerist society not to mention deplorably selfish. What we give to the civil govts becomes "forced charities" but that comes at a high price of not only loss of personal liberties (because of the federal laws that have to go along with such legislations and expenditures) but in making more people lazy in thinking let the govts handle it so I don't have to. Do you think the trillions of dollars we have spent on the "War on Poverty" have come close to realizing benefits close to its cost? If only a small percentage have stayed out of the govts bureaucracies (and Congressional racketeering), the benefits would still have been about the same.

[Buccaneer]

Another point. The poor will always be with us. It will be because 1) it's human nature and 2) it becomes politically expedient to have them (they will keep raising the poverty rates). So the real test becomes what you do personally to help others in need.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Changing the attitude people one person at a time with respect to giving to charity does not leave much for the poor/disadvantaged in the meantime, however.

[Greyroofoo]

I say anyone who can work but doesn't should just be screwed

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Of course, but what about those who can't? Or those who don't have an opportunity to make more than $5.15 hour? Those who are sick? etc. Leaving it to charity won't work right now.