Thursday, May 1, 2008
Online Battle With a McCainiac (cont.)
I know I'm being childish, and I don't care. I'm thoroughly enjoying the "discussion" on Jonn's blog. Based on the feedback I've received, I'm convinced it is much easier to talk with Democrats than Republicans (in this case, anyway). At least Democrats will listen to what you have to say, and are relatively consistent in their beliefs.
Part I of our discussion is here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
April 30th, 2008 at 2:44 am
As I posted in February at pwconservative.net, Ron Paul supporters are attempting to take over the VA Gop, They overwhelm conventions in areas with few republicans (Alexandria,Arlington) and nominate only their delegate’s,
Chris Kachouroff attempted this unsuccessfully,
Amit Singh is case in point, he’s running as an anti-war “Ron Paul” republican against jim moran.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:32 am
Wow Eddie,
“You have history exactly wrong”
I guess I never knew the extent of my own ignorance. Just which part of WWII did I get backwards? The parts where Hitler steamrolled over a good chunk of Europe, bombed London and killed a shitload of people in gas chambers? Or the part where the Japanese kicked our ass all over the Pacific for the first year and a half and brutalized a huge chunk of Asia? I know about the screw ups that led to the war… War is almost always caused by SOMEBODY’s screw up. But what are you going to do when it starts? Being unprepared and underdeployed cost the United States quite a beating in the opening of WWII. (and again in Korea). You talk a good game Ed, but how many times have YOU deployed and seen just how complicated it is to move thousands of men and machines to where they need to be, and, oh yeah… be able to fight when they get there? If we subscibed to your utopian plan, the United States would not have intervened in WWII. What exactly do you think would have happened then? Hitler, satisfied with his winnings would just go back and make little Arians with Eva? If there were no US bases around the world, exactly how would you suggest the Military be physically able to fight? Oh… that’s right, we don’t really need to fight wars. We can just smile and trade with people and the world will be a happy peaceful place, full of people singing the Coke “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing” song. What you fail to realize is that there are “bad people” out there, who, for whatever reason, want power and want what other people have and like hurting people to get it. They do nasty things like kill millions of Jews and gas the Kurds. Of course you are right… they would never come here and do those things if we took your suggestions, because we would be happy friendly traders who have no deployed military and we pose no threat. Why… I’m sure once they started bombing our cities, we could just “whip up” a military strong enough to kick their asses, but just back accross our own border… (mustn’t go to other countries and be mean.)
Fight the wars and get out… no need to stay. Yeah… that would have worked after WWII. I’m sure the Soviet troops would have just sat back with half of Europe and been happy. Korea? Oh yeah they were happy with half (for a while). Japan? Well… they didn’t get into Japan did they? I wonder why? What mysterious power kept the Soviet Union at bay during the last part of the 20th Century? What magic entity held them from taking over pretty much everything? You think it’s impossible to invade and keep a country because of Afganastan? “Somehow the idea of a successful, prolonged invasion of another sovereign nation seems far-fetched.”
Riiiiight…Ask Poland, Romania, and East Germany just how easy it was to throw out the Soviets. Ask the Cubans in Miami about how easy it’s been to get rid of Castro. Ask the Mexicans how well they’re doing getting back Texas. Ask the Native Americans how easy it’s been to kick out the roundeyes. Ask Gaul how easy it was to keep the Romans out. You accuse me of ignorance and simply display your own.
You preach how many mistakes we made, fighting wars and deploying overseas. You say “the mighty US military (the world’s only superpower) cannot control more than a sliver of land in Baghdad.” If our military were a occupation force as it is described by the media, Baghdad would be a smoking hole in the ground. No problem. My old boat could have done that, and every other major city in Iraq with one missile. Then, just back up the oil tankers and fill ‘er up. Cheap gas for everyone. The fact that we aren’t invaders come to plunder a country limits our reactions.
Do I think we haven’t made mistakes? Of course not. Only the perfection of hindsight can see all sides of an issue. But history is history. Can’t change what’s happened. The world is as it is. Pulling our head into our shell will just make it certain that we get our asses blown off by someone who wants something. Some of your solutions would work… but most of them are based on the false assumption that everyone WANTS to get along. Ask the muggers, rapists, home invaders, and murderers how much they care if you get hurt while they get what they want. “But you go on and subscribe to the government’s latest boogeyman if you want. PT Barnum was right–there’s a sucker born every minute” Really? Wow… how many years as a globetrotting superman do you have? You sit in your parents basement spouting shit like a Christmas goose. I’ve seen the evil men can do. Some Boogymen DO exist asshole.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Ray,
I appreciate your passion, but I don’t think have refuted my argument. To re-state it, I asked you whether or not you’ve balanced your research with scholarship that is critical of United States foreign policy, from WWI to our present nightmares in Iraq and Afghanistan. Based on your response, I’m forced to assume the answer is a (resounding) no. Further, you don’t know me–I could be a 30 year veteran of the Marine Corps or Cindy Sheehan’s sister, and in either case that knowledge would be irrelevant to our discussion. Let’s focus on the material and not the person, OK?
I don’t dispute what happened during WWII when it comes to Germany, Japan, and Italy. However, it is impossible to understand *why* people like Hitler and Stalin come to power without discussing the direct involvement of the United States in fomenting European (and Asian) conflict. Do your research. And please spare me the “We were saving the Jews!” argument because that is an exercise in futility. We didn’t fight WWII to liberate the Jews any more than we invaded Iraq to liberate Iraqis.
Moreover, the idea of Soviet Russia invading us during the cold war or anytime thereafter remains as laughable as it is absurd. Ray, how many countries can you name that were conquered by the Soviet Union? I’m not talking about occupation or border disputes amongst her ethnic people, but outright conquest. I’ll give you a hint: it rhymes with zero. That we were able to win the Cold War (against an enemy with an enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons) without firing a shot should tell you something about the power of diplomacy and talking with foreign leaders during tense periods. Instead, today, we have taken the opposite approach: we get uptight over the *possibility* that a country like Iran (who has signed the NNPT, something our “staunch” ally Israel has steadfastly refused to do) is enriching uranium…and may have the capability to build a bomb within a few years. Please clarify for me how I’m being ignorant in my desire to adhere to a non-interventionist foreign policy?
Declaring illegal war is becoming easier and easier, and the bulk of our population is mindlessly conforming to the whims of an irresponsible government that is drunk on its own power. We started out declaring sovereign nations enemies of the United States, now we’ve resorted to declaring war on non-entities like drugs, poverty, Islamofascism (a hilarious term if ever there was one), and, presently, terror. Where will it end? Our citizens lose every time, through taxation, through inflation, through injury and death, and through the erosion of our sacred liberties. It goes without saying that wars are not fought to conquer, to police, and to bring things back into balance…wars are fought to keep the citizen population under the thumb of an oppressive government.
A while ago John mentioned “Libertarians think we all live in the 19th century in remote agrarian communities isolated from the next country” and accused Ron Paul supporters of being unemployed basement dwellers. You have done much the same, Ray, and I think what both of you are trying to establish by saying that is to label me an isolationist. I’m forced to ask, though: who’s more of an isolationist? Me, who advocates diplomacy, trade, and commerce with all nations (and entangling alliances with none); or you two, who advocate (I’m inferring here, so please correct me if I’m wrong) no interaction with countries like Iran, global military presence overseas, and a continuation of interventionist foreign policy (which has failed miserably)? Between the two arguments, if I had to choose who was unemployed, isolated, and uninformed, I’d choose the group who refused to engage in diplomacy with other countries…but that’s just me.
I’m not pacifist, either, and I acknowledge that evil does exist in this world. Like other Ron Paul supporters, I believe in a strong national defense, but also believe our defense does not extend to cover hundreds of overseas bases. We can’t afford it, and we are less safe for following that path. If the United States determines there is a threat to her well-being as a nation, then we should DECLARE WAR, win it, and then come home. This idea that we can fight wars at the behest of the President or to enforce UN regulations not only undermines the sovereignty of the United States (ironic when you consider we fight these wars supposedly to protect our sovereignty), but grossly violates the Constitution as well.
Further, I have absolutely no problem if you, John, your friends, families, etc. want to sign up and fight for the liberation of Iraqis, Venezuelans, Tibetans, Indians, Sudanese, or any other global hotspot that you deem threatens your sovereignty. By all means, become a mercenary and fight/kill/maim until your heart’s content. There’s nothing stopping you. But what right do you have to interfere with my ability to make a living? You may not see these undeclared wars as preventing Americans from enjoying their lives (you may even subscribe to the propaganda that these wars preserve our freedom) but the evidence surrounding you is impossible to ignore. Inflation, high taxes, erosion of civil liberties, etc. are a reality…and a direct consequence of our failed interventionist foreign policy and reckless government expansion. None of the remaining candidates (save for Ron Paul) will change that reality, either.
I think our biggest disconnect is that we have different answers to the above question, and I’d love to hear the rationale behind your answer.
Jonn wrote: No, our biggest “disconnect” is that you won’t accept answers that prove you to be ill-educated and sworn to an intellectually bankrupt ideology. My concentration of study in history and political science was in US foreign policy - but I suppose that isn’t enough education for you. The Ron Paul supporters are real fond at telling everyone how we won’t listen to people, but the truth is that the Paulians are the most ignorant, ill-read and close-minded creatures involved in our political process. Absolutely everything is the fault of some nebulous corporate conspiracy who is fixated on silencing the negligible 2% of voters who support Ron Paul, apparently.
What did you write in that post that you couldn’t have summarized in a paragraph? My case for calling you a blowhard is made. No one here has the time or inclination to engage in your mental masturbation when you can’t even accept basic math or give the American voter credit for even a tiny bit of thought to the process. Who wants to lay out a case to a snob who pooh-poohs every word? You won’t do any converting here, so please move on.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Jonn,
I’ve been trying for months to get a Paultard invasion on my blog and, alas, it has failed. I salute you for accomplishing the feat before I, sir. Although, I have to admit that I am looking into Bob Barr being a decent candidate.
Jonn wrote: Well, apparently you have to video Ron Paul so that 900,000,000 people view it in the first hour on YouTube, link to your blog from there and then warn about a Ron Paul hissy fit before it happens. It’s just that easy.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
What John said. LOL