I am not an American (I am British – also watch out for my poor spelling), but I have watched the Republican debate, and the interviews after the debate, on Fox News and my impressions are as follows:
On government spending Congressman Tancredo was impressive. He made the point about most Federal government spending being unconstitutional (which I expected Congressman Ron Paul to make, and he did not) and he made the point that various candidates were now saying they were hostile to expanding government spending but that they did not join him in voting against it when they had the chance (another point I expected Congressman Ron Paul to make – and I do not remember him making it).
On detailed military and security knowledge Congressman Duncan Hunter was impressive (for example in explaining what the present military-political tactics in Iraq were), the other candidates tended to talk in general terms and their grasp of some facts was uncertain. For example, Senator John McCain stated (and stated again in the post debate interview) that the division in Congress on ‘waterboarding’ (in interrogation) was between people who had served in the military (who he said were against the practice) and people who had not.
Whatever one thinks of “waterboarding”, the fact was that Congressman Hunter was sitting only a few feet from Senator McCain and had already stated that he had served in the military (Vietnam) and that his son was serving in Iraq.
On illegal immigration Congressman Hunter was at least as specific as Congressman Tancredo (who has made illegal immigration one of main issues). Libertarian minded people are normally (although not always) free migration people – but if you are interested in things like border control Congressman Hunter seemed to know at least as much about it as Congressman Tancredo did.
On abortion all the candidates, bar one, wished it to be unlawful. The one who dissented was (of course) former Mayor R.G. who stated not simply that abortion was a State matter (which would make him anti Roe V Wade without making him give a position on abortion itself), but openly stated that he wished to keep abortion legal (i.e. if he was running for State, rather than Federal, office that would be his position) – although he did state how much he hated abortion and how he wished to reduce the number of abortions (and claimed that his policy on such things as adoption had done this in New York City).
R.G. also replied to Congressman Ron Paul’s claim that American “bombing of Iraq whilst it was under sanctions” (and other interventions in the Middle East) provoked 9/11. The former Mayor of New York did not go into a detailed examination of Congressman Paul’s claims (as he was speaking without permission, the moderators would not have allowed him to speak long), he simply stated (in a quiet but firm way) that blaming the United States for 9/11 was ridiculous and called upon Congressman Paul to retract his comments (which Congressman Paul refused to do) – this reply got a vast positive response from the audience. The audience had been warned before the debate not to applaud – but Congressman Paul’s words did rather change the situation, making a reply and audience response not something that could really be prevented. Later in the debate Congressman Tancredo stated that he did want to be associated with his “dear friend’s [Ron Paul’s] remarks” which ignored the religious motivation of America’s enemies – i.e. their interpretation of Islam which holds that the main infidel power should be defeated regardless of what policy it follows (other than submission to Islam).
In the post debate interview, on being asked about Saddam Hussain gassing the Kurds, Congressman Paul said “we gave them the gas” (untrue). It did put me in mind of the late Murry Rothbard, with his habit of repeating whatever the latest enemy propaganda about the United States government and military happened to be. It should remind people (such as myself) how rant on about how bad the left are, that not all of the blame America crowd are on the left. And I write all this as someone who opposed the judgement to go into Iraq.
Mitt Romney (former Governor of Mass) was talked of a lot before the debate, but I thought his performance was terrible. He stated that he was “for Second Amendment Rights” but he also stated that he was “for the assault weapons ban”. He stated that he was in favour of getting government spending under control (as all the candidates did – for example R.G. was very strong on this) but also stated that it was a government responsibilty that everyone had health cover, and stated how much he supported “No Child Left Behind” (the extra Federal government funding and regulations that President Bush and Senator Kennedy introduced).
However, after the debate the “text vote” had former Governor Romney comming in second (after Ron Paul) as the winner of the debate – indeed he overtook Congressman Paul in the text voting by the end of the post debate show.
As regards former Governor Romney – those “text voters” must have been watching a different debate to me. Unless his campaign people were doing something.
I know well that the were other people in the debate. The former Governors of Arkansas, Wisconsin and Virginia. But they did not make much of an impression on me – although the former Governor of Arkansas got a laugh from the audience with a joke about former Senator John Edwards. Governor Huckabee also defended his choice to greatly increase road building and education spending in the State of Arkansas. Former Governor Thompson of Wisconsin made a point about how many times he had used the veto (more than all the other candidates of both parties put together he claimed). And former Governor of Virginia Gilmour made the point that he had reached out to racial minorities whilst Governor and also whilst Chairman of the Republican party.
“Well who would you vote for”.
Perhaps it is just as well that I do not have a vote – as I am unsure.
However, after the debate the “text vote” had former Governor Romney comming in second (after Ron Paul) as the winner of the debate
Well, the fact that Ron Paul came in first should tell you right there that something’s fishy with the “text vote.” It got spammed by Paul’s supporters and Nutroot types; they sent out e-mails and posted the link to the poll at several different websites, urging their fellow-travellers to vote for Paul.
Don’t imagine that this poll reflects the American people’s view of the debate, the candidates, or the issues in any way.
*sigh* In this day and age of organized, instant spamming, the television networks ought to know better than to have silly Internet polls like that. Of course, they do know better. They don’t care about accuracy. What they want is drama and immediacy, and these crappy little polls will bring it every time, no matter how wildly untrue they know them to be.
I’ve long not taken Paul seriously.
His comment about the gassed Kurds does make me wonder whether he’s credulous or deliberately lying.
I’m inclined to be charitable and assume credulous; it fits in with his worldview, as I understand it, “too good to check”, so I’ll just assume he didn’t check.
(Then again, when anyone starts going on about how the Federal Reserve is the Greatest Threat To America and Freedom Demands We Return To The Gold Standard, I know to start disregarding.
It shows they read someone who read Mises, but unfortunately that they didn’t read, oh, the later Hayek, or anyone else who mentioned the downsides of metallism, or that the great threat Mises saw (deliberate inflationism) is essentially dead in all serious countries. [Zimbabwe and Venezuela have problems, but abandoning Gold isn’t the cause, and a gold standard won’t save either.])
I LOVED when Tancredo went off about government spending; I was ready to vote for him right then. But then it all turned into the standard Repub boilerplate of “scare the voter” agitprop. Apparently, armies of illegal immigrants are poised at the border, ready to come into our homes and give our daughters abortions while performing gay marriages on our household pets.
Still, they all seemed better informed than the Dems…
Probably true. The guy was a legend for his veto pen. Wisconsin has line item veto, probably the most generous of any state. He was in court defending his interpretation of the veto powers and would even ‘line’ item veto individual digits to make spending bills smaller. I think he got stopped from that but he still vetoed a huge amount. Yet he maintained our infrastructure.
He also got special federal permissions to experiment with welfare to place qualifications on it. The left immediately dubbed them things like “learnfare“, “workfare” and “bridefare“. From this article:
Nice informative post.
To the question of US gas killing Kurds, Paul may be alluding to the controversy of who actually did the gassing–Iraq or Iran.
Stephen C. Pelletiere, former CIA analyst, stated in an 03 NY Times article (bootleg here) it was the Iranians.
Juan Cole, an academic, then rebutted him by stating that the Iraqi documents captured by the US clearly show Iraqi authorization for gassing the Kurds. Further, Cole lists extensive sources, like Human Rights Watch and Harvard’s collection of those documents which seem to greatly weaken Pelletiere’s claims. He also uses good sense–that Iran probably did not want to gas their Kurdish allies but the Baathists had reason to do so.
So, Paul, please clarify if you mean the Iraqis did not gas the Kurds or if the gas was not American supplied somehow. If the latter, what were the origins of the gas?
I’m no big fan of Ron Paul’s paranoia inspired foreign policy, but reactions like this from the Right are contemptable. Let the man spout his crap in public. It’s the only way you can successfully marginalize idiots. Attempting to censor them only gives them legitimate grievances that they can use to gain the spotlight.
Laura,
Why do you assume the vote was “spammed”? All the candidates have supporters and websites urging them to vote, but apparently Paul has more who were willing to take the trouble.
If anything underhanded was going on, I’ve yet to see any actual evidence of it. But if it were, I’d expect the “front runners”, who have more money, to be able to “spam” more effectively.
Ron Paul supporters tend to have more time to vote on internet polls because there’s not much else to do except adjust the tin foil lining in their parent’s basement. Simple as that really.
It’s a shame really, he seems a decent enough fellow himself, but he’s decided that there are more votes to had in the Blame-America-First lobby than among patrotic conservatives; probably (hopefully) he’s wrong.
I just this afternoon met a friend of mine who is a small business owner. He is generally Democrat but has fairly typical small business owner’s political opinions. He is a good bellweather for ‘middle of the road’. Knowing that I follow politics he volunteered that he had watched that Republican debate and that “there was a Don Paul fellow that said something really good.”
He was refering to the ‘if we leave them alone, they’ll leave us alone’ substance of Ron Paul’s remarks.
I’m afraid Ron Paul really may have scored a lot of points with his proveably wrong remarks on Iraq.
Nuts. “for all the wrong reasons”
Regarding the U.S. supplying Iraq with WMD:
http://www.fff.org...
Having now read my own post (horrible typing errors and all) I note that I did not mention Senator Brownback.
I did not mean this as a mark of disrespect (I am sure he is a fine man) it is just that, even as I sit here and think about it, I can not remember anything he said in the debate. I do remember he made a joke in the post debate interview (that he would only take the text vote seriously if it showed a Senator Brownback in the lead) but that is it.
On Ron Paul:
First the gassing point that Michiganny made.
Both – I hold that Saddam ordered the gassing (not the Iranians).
And the United States did not supply such chemical weapons to either Iraq or Iran anyway.
Ron Paul generally:
The thing is I am a natural Ron Paul type.
For example, I am a commodity money man (I hold fiat money to both unconstitutional and economically unwise).
I do not even like the term “gold standard” as this implies that the gold is somehow a “base” of money, not the money itself.
If people choose to use gold, or silver (or whatever – although the Constitution of the United States only mentions gold or silver coin) as money that is up to them – as long as contracts are clear about what they have agreed to use.
As for the credit bubble fractional reserve system – I am as hard line as the late Murry Rothbard (a man I am not shy of opposing on other matters) about that, and the “index money” that Hayek once suggested falls at the first problem (construcing an index that could be used to for this purpose) – and has lots of other problems about that.
I was even against going into Iraq in 2003 (and got called a “racist” for doubting that liberal democracy could be spread to these people) and whilst I do not hold that the West should surrender in Iraq now (any such move would be a massive victory for the enemies of the West and would make victory anywhere else vastly more difficult) I am willing to listen to a military-political tactics argument that the West should pull out.
But I am not open to a load of nonsense about how the United States is to blame for 9/11, and how the United States is also responsible for gassing the Kurds.
It may be “disgusting” to strongly attack Ron Paul, but I do hear that A.B.C.’s “The View” is going to need a new person soon, and in these days of equal opportunites it is unclear why all four people should be women, has Congressman Paul considered taking the job? He sounded much the same as the person who is leaving.
“So, Paul, please clarify if you mean the Iraqis did not gas the Kurds or if the gas was not American supplied somehow. If the latter, what were the origins of the gas?”
I wonder sometimes why people risks giving opinion and then in next paragraph show such kind of uninformed opinion about Iraq and American centric perspective. Even if inverted one.
No one sold gas to Iraq from all available information. It was produced in Iraq from European technology mainly West German. There around a dozen chemical factories late 70’s begin 80’s in Iraq . The first was Italian, most were German, others were from Netherlans or Belgium i cant remember which of them and at least a French one . Note that this doesnt means all that factories produced gas but that was the technological cooperation that made Iraq able to make gas in their instalations. There is a small note to make that the training gas facility of Iraq army was build by Eastern Germany, from the other side of Iron Curtain. Further cooperation by Warsaw Pact i dont know but many of Saddam weapons systems were Soviet technology but it’s dificult to say more because Iraq had technological capabilities to change them without Soviet help.
From all over the world came dual use components from USA (the commerce department wanted to sell everything the Pentagon tried to stop anything) to China to Singapure to Brazil almost any industrialised country.
USA was the first country to apply sanctions to dual use equipment following UN reports in 1984 about gassing. In 1985-86 most European countries already were embargoing Iraq but in my opinion an embargo to be foolproof needs to send a country to XIX century tech…
I just remembered that I had not actually said where the gas technology came from (in the reply to Michiganny which will turn up at some point).
However, I would have typed “Germany” (and made the point that this was quite unusual as most of Saddam’s stuff came from his fellow socialists in the Eastern Block). lucklady did a much better job than I would have done.
As for American “arms to Iraq” – this was actually “pictures to Iraq” (intelligence to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war) but that does not sound so impressive.
The British “arms to Iraq” was one sting operation (parts for the super gun that did not, and were never intended to, get to Iraq) and a couple of high quality hunting rifles (although one can never know for sure that Saddam did not use them on human beings).
Of course none of the above ever stopped the B.B.C. (and so on) talking of Britian and American “arms to Iraq” – whilst showing pictures of marching men with Ak47 rifles, T72 tanks rolling along, and Mig aircraft flying overhead.
Indeed I have even heard defenders of the Iraq war here (in talk shows) saying “we armed him, we created his miltary might – so it was our duty to make amends by dealing with it”.
Ignorance (on this and other matters) seems almost univeral in Britain – whether the people are anti or pro Iraq war.
When my typing mistakes are letter blindness it is not so bad – but when word blindness strikes (as it often does) the results can be very bad indeed.
I have just noticed that I typed that Congressman Tancredo wanted to be associated with Congressman Paul’s remarks – not that that he did not want to be associated with them.
Of course both men go back a long way in free market circles (Tancredo used to run a free market institute in Colorado). And both men dissent from the mainstream libertarian view on immigration (it is well know that Tancredo is tough on migration, but it is less well known that Paul is not a free migration man either).
However, on 9/11 (and the nature of the radical Islamice threat generally) a big gap has opened up between the “dear friends”.
Perhaps it is just as well that I do not have a vote – as I am unsure.
Oh, there’s plenty of time to make up your mind… it’s what, 8 months until the first primary?
—–
The New York Times has dubbed him “Gov. Get-a-Job.”
-Midwesterner
Heh. I could stand more of that at the federal level…
So, Paul, please clarify if you mean the Iraqis did not gas the Kurds or if the gas was not American supplied somehow. If the latter, what were the origins of the gas?
From Wikipedia, re Halabja:
International sources for technology and chemical precursors
According Iraq’s report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from firms in such countries as: the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and China.[1] By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.[2]
—–
IIRC, the chemicals imported were officially intended to be used to produce pesticide, at a plant designed and/or built by a west german company. This is plausible, Iraq is in a region known as the ‘fertile crescent’, and agriculture is a going enterprise over there.
Pretty much every western nation embargoed Iraq once it was discovered what Saddam was actually using the stuff for.
How could somebody possibly think that Arabs get angry when you kill them? What an absurd thought. They like it when we bomb them, and to suggest that our many bombings and invasions of the Middle East are somehow unwelcome is insane. Perhaps Ron Paul’s mistake is assuming that Arabs are human, and that they find it difficult to forgive when their families are killed by Americans, or when their co-religionists are killed in the West Bank and the Gaza strip by bombs proudly stamped “Made in the USA”, or when their (scarce) elected governments are overthrown by the CIA and replaced with dictatorships.
Or perhaps most conservatives are idiots on this issue, and the Arabs really are human, and they really do get angry when their families and friends are killed and enslaved. Anything is possible.
What many bombings are these? Are you referring to the Gulf War? On the invitation of a sovereign government dumbutt. The second Gulf War? Chronology doesn’t quite work there, but then again linear time is probably some Mossad conspiracy. Lebanon, perhaps? So arab Christians should have simply jumped in the sea en masse. Suez? Oh wait, perhaps its the Brits who should be bombing New York over that one. I’m running iut of ideas here.
Presumably Mossadeq. So you approve of nationalising private property owned by foreign companies without payment now do you? Very Libertarian. Who are your other democratic heroes, Nasser? Ho Chi Minh? Hitler? On second thoughts don’t answer that.
And American money funding the Palestinian Authority goes directly to blowing up Israeli civilians. So I guess Jews must have flown Aeroplanes into the twin towers. Again, don’t answer that.
Yeah, Osama’s all testy about infringements on his people’s personal liberty.
In general, if you think that Al Queda is motivated by the Kuwait war or the overthrow of Mossadeq then you’re almost certainly deranged. Thanks, by the way, for neatly demonstrating why, despite the fact that libertarians consistently show up as one of the biggest opinion blocks in the US, only fruitloops vote for the LP. Now you can go back to muttering that intervention in WW2 was a mistake and how legitimate anger at this unprovoked agression inspired the Baader Meinhoff gang or whatever.
Rich Paul is the sort of fellow who makes you hope a global caliphate is established so you can watch the bemused look on his face when a death squad saws off his noggin.
Like, er, Saddam Hussain? That great democratic humanitarian?
And what’s with “The Arabs”? Some undifferentiated mass of people ranging from Al Qaeda to Mr. and Mrs. Mohammed minding their own business in Cairo? Do you not think maybe, just like other ethnic groups, some are wicked and some are not? Certainly if Al Qaeda is upset about something that has been done to them, that is generally a good sign.
Lets see:
We’ve bombed Libya, Iraq I, the Sudan (Clinton’s wag the dog aspirin factory bombing), and Iraq II.
We’ve invaded many countries, including Lebanon, Iraq (twice), Somalia, Iran (Carter’s pathetic attempt),.
We’ve interfered with the political process in nearly every, if not every, nation in the region. In some cases this was due to the cold war, in other places with was to prop up pro-American regimes in governing anti-American populations.
As for the Brits vs. the Americans, what makes you think that most Arabs draw fine distinctions? When they think of “Western Interference”, they are unlikely to distinguish between British colonialism and American interventionism. Why should they? When we were attacked by 18 criminals, who mostly came from Saudi Arabia, we had no problem invading Afghanistan (which did have some involvement) and Iraq (which had nothing to do with it at all).
Yes, we overthrew Mossadeq. No, I don’t approve of what he did, I think his economic policies were insane. But I’m not Iranian. If they want to be Socialist, let them be Socialist. I’m not going to be moving there, so I don’t care what form of government they have. Nasser? He was very popular there. Again, I don’t approve. Again, my lack of approval is not an excuse to impose my will on them. If they want him, they can have him, for all I care. We should be enforcing the Constitution at home, not trying to impose it on countries that don’t want it.
I’m not crazy about the Socialist policies in Brittan or in the European Union, either, but I suspect that you guys would resent it if we invaded.
He’s not interested in civil liberties as we see them. He is interested in self determination.
Actually, in WWII, we were attacked. We had every right to respond. Against the people who attacked us: the Japanese. Germany declared war on us, at that point, and was allied with Japan, so there was no reason not to war with them as well. WWI is another question. Our founding fathers knew that Europe would be constantly begging us to intervene in it’s problems. That is why they came up with the wonderful idea of “free trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none”.
Sure, a bunch of backward Third World nations are going to invade America. They can’t even defeat Israel. But what are they going to do tonight, Brain? Same thing they do every night, Pinky, take over the world.
justified
Undeniably justified
And the government of Sudan has committed two genocides against the (native one might add) black population of their country. Yet blacks do not blow themselves up in Arab capitals. Now do black people not hurt as much as Arabs, or might the difference have something more to do with their not being infected by one of the most evil ideologies of all time?
(P.S. is your hyper-empathy for Arabs in any way related to the untrammelled power arab men have over their wives? You strike me as the type).
This is about Ron Paul’s despicable remarks regarding the causes of 9/11 ergo my remarks about chronology.
You forget to mention that we also militarily have created not one, but two Islamic states in Europe. Whence those serbian terrorists eh? Or, again, is it only Arabs who have feelings?
To protect civilans from your heores.
1st time we didn’t second time, again chronology.
See lebanon
so now you’re saying it is worng for the U.S. even to attempt to save its citizens?
Just as in Korea, the consequence of American non-interference is not a lack of interference, but much more interference by much worse people.
So have many countries. Yet America was singled out. Why? Because it is a symbol of individualism and civilized government, the Athens of our times. and you’re our Plato, only thick.
No, he wants all peoples to be ruled from Mecca.
As you rightly say, the Islamists can only succeed if we lose the will to defeat them.
Perry:
That’s exactly what I was trying and failing to say. I guess that’s why only one of us is a blogger.
Ron Paul isn’t so much a libertarian as a good, old-fashioned Taft Republican. Paul’s foreign policy statements in the debate could just as easily be quotes from “Mr Republican” himself. Paul is old enough to remember Robert Taft – he’s the oldest candidate in this election, being just over a year older than John McCain.
“Sure, a bunch of backward Third World nations are going to invade America. They can’t even defeat Israel. But what are they going to do tonight, Brain? ”
Did 911 or the London bombings teached anything to you?
Invasion? XX Century concepts for XXI battlefield… The XXI battlefield is also in media , it is Palestinians sending rockets to an Israeli village without any military value and no newspaper, BBC, Guardian talks about War Crimes or it’s people like Ron Paul saying in practice that all Muslims that dont attack America are wrong.
People react in different ways to different things. The IRA reacted very differently to English occupation than the Indians (not American Indians, the other ones) did. Does that mean that the Irish are infected by one of the most evil ideologies of all time? Or do people react according to their means, inclinations, and the vagaries of leadership? How about we colonials? As I recall, we bled a great many of you when you went from mother country to oppressor. Is our ideology evil in America?
Of course another interesting question is this: if all Arabs are evil, how will imposing Democracy resolve the problem? Won’t they just elect evil leaders? Really, if your assumption that all Arabs or all Muslims are evil is true, then we have two options: withdrawal and genocide. I prefer the former.
I don’t give a damn about Arabs per se. I am concerned about America first, last, and only. If the Arabs make peace among themselves, wonderful. If the Arab nationalists and the Muslim nationalists wipe each other out, that is fine too. It is their problem. But I don’t want my country to be a party to it, and I don’t want my country to pay for it.
Which was also wrong. It doesn’t matter which side we are intervening on. It’s somebody else’s fight. We cannot resolve the fights, any more than Tito or Stalin resolved the ethnic conflicts in their respective countries. All we can do is hold them in abeyance for a while, and give the sides time to rearm. Then they will be back at it.
Again, I don’t support them. I support us. I’m not interested in spending American blood or treasure fighting a war that can bring us only harm.
I did not say it was wrong, I said we did it. I think we would have been perfectly justified, had we chosen to, in nuking Tehran when our embassy was attacked. An American embassy is American soil. Which is not to say that I would recommend that option: just that we had the right, as we had been attacked.
That does not mean that we have some duty to interfere. Other people do awful things all the time. Since I am in no way responsible for the actions of other governments, it is not my problem. Since I do bear (some) responsibility for the actions of my government, it is only American interference with which I concern myself.
Actually, Plato was hardly a Libertarian. He was closer to an Authoritarian, as I understand it.
And if they want it too (and all indications are that right now, most Arabs want the same), then let them have it. It’s their problem. Maybe they need to have their own Renaissance before they get over theocracy. That’s their problem. Of course, I will fight to the death to avoid any theocracy in America. If they want England, you guys can deal with it.
They can also only succeed if they spend a century building up some semblance of a civilization. By that time, if we actually leave them alone, perhaps they will have come to their senses. Who will you posit next as invaders of America? Venezuela? Cuba? Again, they have reprehensible governments. Again, they would like to invade and occupy America. And they are just as likely to succeed.
The point is that the people who were not part of Al Qaeda, but now are, are angry about what was done to them and their families and their tribes when they were innocent civilians.
The only directly contact we had with Al Qaeda before they started attacking us was when we used them to fight a proxy war against Russia. They’re just another dragon tooth we planted, which grew into a soldier to attack us.
The Republican debate was essentially meaningless, because Fred Thompson (the other, better Thompson) wasn’t there.
When he is, the others will be revealed as the shallow (Romney) opportunistic (McCain) ur-liberal (Giuliani) nutcases (Paul) that they are.
Kim: excellent point. How come he was not there?
Alisa: Fred Thompson isn’t there because he has yet to declare his intention to run for President. Scuttlebutt is he’s waiting for his contract with the TV show Law and Order to expire. He’s a politician turned actor, a sort of inverse Reagan 😉
This blame America stuff from Rich Paul is a bore, but I have come to expect it from the Rothbard people.
It is not just over the Iraq war. As far as they are concerned America has been in the wrong and her enemies have been in the right in every war for the last two centuries.
As for Iraq – the vast majority of civilian deaths (something like 99%) are killingsw by Muslims (local and others) – not by the evil American military or the C.I.A.
As for “overturning democracies” – is this the 1953 thing again? The turning out of pro Soviet Prime Minister?
That was IRAN not Iraq (p.s. Iran is not an Arab country).
Of course none of the above proves that it was the right move to go into Iraq in 2003 (although getting rid of Saddam was noble it could still have been unwise).
My position was (and is) that the judgement was unwise – I was called a “racist” at the time for doubting that an operation to create a democracy in Iraq would work.
Although I doubt whether getting out now is the correct policy I am certainly open to being convinced – I was prepared to listen to repectful tactical arguments.
However, Ron Paul did not say what I have just said. He blamed America for 9/11 (“no he did not” – sorry I watched the debate and the post debate interview and that was the impression he gave me). He even said that “we gave them the gas” when he was asked about gassing the Kurds.
You do not ally with the enemy in time of war, and you do not spread the lies of the enemy either.
If you do not know this it is time you did.
The whole thing reminded me of Murry Rothbard during the Vietnam war.
The enemy were not “really” communists, and they would not murder millions and enslave tens of millions if they took over Indochina.
You see the various Marxist formations were “really” semi libertarian “national liberation movements against Western Imperialism”.
It is not sensible for libertarian to take their lines from the Soviet Union (as Rothbard did) or from propaganda web sites (which is where “we gave them the gas” came from).
Ron Paul did not think this up himself – this stuff was put in his head.
I have been around awhile – I know where this “left and right join hands” stuff leads.
WE GET USED BY THEM.
In any alliance with the left – it is the left who take control.
There are worse things that the United States government in the world and sadly the Rothbardian wing of libertarianism is getting used by them – AGAIN.
The modern left (with a few honourable exceptions) has chosed to ally with the worst elements in Islam (both Sunni and Shia) on the basis of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
The great enemy of the left and of radical Islam in the world, is the United States of America.
It is not sensible (to put it mildly) for libertarians to ally with the left (Marxist and neo Marxist) and with radical Islam (Sunni and Shia).
I say again that there are worse things than Uncle Sam in the world.
You might want to look up the following two words in the dictionary.
1) Causation
2) Justification
Causation means that an event caused another event to happen. For example, if you say “The neocon religious fanatic got angry and shot me because I am not interested in spending tax dollars on Israel to that Jesus will come back and whisk him away to never-never land”, I am not asserting that the neocon religious fanatic is correct. I am asserting causation.
However, if I say “I was justified in shooting the neocon religious fanatic, because he was about to shoot me”, then I am asserting justification. This is a stronger assertion.
Now think really hard about what Ron Paul said. Did he say “911 was justified, because the evil USA was interfering with the peace loving Muslims”, or was his statement more akin to “The Muslims attacked us in part because they, rightly or wrongly, believed that our interference in their affairs was unjustified”. It sounded much closer to the latter to me. Check out YouTube, and try to pay attention to the words coming out of Ron’s mouth rather than putting them in.
As for the left/right thing, I care as little about what the left says as I do about what the right says. Both sides are wrong more often than not. Sometimes things I say will be similar to what they say, in the very rare cases where one or the other group is correct (IMHO). This is neither causation nor justification. It’s happenstance.
Thanks, Edward.
Rich: neocons are normally not religious fanatics, or even religious at all, although, of course, there may be such a thing as a neocon fanatic, or a religious fanatic. Not nitpicking, just making sure that you know what the hell it is you are talking about.
And this supposed causal link would explain the Muslim insurgency in places like the Philippines and Thailand too presumably, given that those two countries are notorious neo-colonial meddlers who drop smart bombs on people and project their power around the world, right?
Rich Paul,
The fact that you raise interesting points does not mean much around here.
Whenever you go against Republican orthodoxy on this site, expect to be told you are a bad American, usually by non-Americans. I guess in your case you are a wife beater as well. And stupid.
This is especially the case when you say you have America’s interests at heart. You see, when you disagree with these people, they read it as you saying you hate America. They are the only people allowed to define what is good for the country you actually live in.
And by the way, libertarian apparently means many things on Samizdata–but regarding America it means mostly supporting Republican foreign policy (Iraq), or bad foreign policy in general (Vietnam is the third-rail of this site).
It does not mean you come to your own conclusions based upon the Enlightenment’s ideals (like liberty). It also does not mean that people who bitch endlessly about how their (leftist) government shot a Brazilian subway passenger will give you any slack when you think the (rightist) US government should lay off bombing, killing, or torturing foreigners.
Thanks, Michiganny. I re-read my posts, and couldn’t see where he got the wife thing, so I just let it pass.
On the neocons, I would classify Bush as both a neocon and a religious fanatic. I really am at wit’s end trying to grok the whole neocon thing. These are the two explanations I’ve seen for them:
1) They are ex Trotskyists followers who somehow decided they were conservatives but wanted to spend like socialists, and they couldn’t figure out how to waste as much money as they would like without going to war with somebody
2) They are born-again nutballs who think think that if they don’t do everything that Israel wants, they will be “cursing Israel”, and therefore go to hell. The kicker on this theory is that if Israel gets everything it wants, Jesus will come back, and send all the Israelis to hell for being Jews. While, of course, loving and forgiving them, ’cause he’s all about that stuff.
So it seems that one way or the other it qualifies as a pathology, but the nature of the disease escapes me. Personally, I’m an agnostic, since I don’t have enough faith to be an Atheist.
Uh, yeah, it’s called Marxism.
The question is, again, why are serbs not blowing up towers in New York, working by your inductive reasoning?
That’s not quite the point. He was a traitor to western civilization and chose to spend his time eulogising its enemies and shitting all over his city by fair means or foul. His inane specific ideas are of no interest to me.
Do you actually seriously believe this sort of thing? Such ideas were never genuinely realistic and in the age of the internet and plane travel, it’s just demented.
And this caused 9/11 how?
The U.S. never used Al Queda, it used the Northen Alliance who are still allies and, to a lesser extent, the Taliban.
As a rule people who get all gooey eyed about Arab ‘feelings’, ‘pride’, or whateverthefuck (even if they then claim not to care after all) usually turn out to hate women. I’m not saying all, but then I saw that you’re a libertarian computer programmer and I got all bigoted. So I retract the statemtent.
Neocons are just moderate social democrats who are patriotic and proud of their western heritage, like FDR for example, but if reading conspiracy theories by Justin Raimando makes you feel better, whatever.
As to whether you are a good American or not, I couldn’t care less. You’re a traitor to western civilization in it’s entirety. If you had your way, presumably, MacArthur would not have been allowed to proceed with his ‘neocon’ mission to destroy shintoism as a national religion, the whole, not just half, of North Korea, would be a famine stricken nightmare and a million people would have been massacred by Communists in Vietnam (hold up, you got that one, does it warm your cockles?).
Rich Paul:
..other than being the center of the Caliphate. You know, the concept that the NINETEEN hijackers’ parent movement wanted to bring back?
Never mind, I’m not sure that anybody here has spent much breath on defending Saudi Arabia. That government and the sect that pervades their society is about as evil as anything in the modern world, and they make Hugo Chavez look like a civilized human being. So I don’t understand why you’re going with a variant of the “But moooom! He did it toooooo!” defense of Iraq.
Also, we didn’t fund al-Qaeda for anything. Neither they nor the Taliban existed in the mid 1980’s. The hero of AQ (and pparently of the Rothbardians) was still whore-hopping on daddy’s money back then.
Now, considering that the gas that Saddam Hussein ordered used on the Kurds was made in Iraq using dual-use technology of primarily German origin, I’m a little confused as to Ron Paul’s statement of “we gave them the gas.” Perhaps you could explain that for me? I mean, so far it rides about as well as the “We armed Hussein in general” nonsense usually heard from the moonbat left, who can’t explain how the US armed him with Soviet (and Russian) guns, Soviet (and Russian) tanks, Soviet (and Russian, and French) aircraft, etc.
I mean, there are a lot of Kalashnikov rifles, Chelyabinsk iron, and Mirages for a supposed US client state. What, exactly, did we send him again?
And while you’re ignoring difficult questions, whose self-determination is bin Laden trying to protect? Jews? Women? Christians?
First Michiganny:
“Republican orthodoxy”.
Well if you mean Jeffersonian Republican orthodoxy you may have a point – however certainly not if you mean the Republican party of George Walker Bush (or George Herbert Walker Bush).
Many people here (including myself) have often expressed their contempt for such things “no child left behind” and the whole “compassionate conservative” project.
However, this does not mean that I have any problem is knowing what side I am on in a conflict between the West (not just the United States) and the interpretation of Islam supported by such people as O.B.L.
Or knowing that implying that America is to blame for 9/11 is vile. I am certainly not saying that Ron Paul just produced that out of his own head (any more than he just thought up “we gave them the gas” accusing the United States of being responsible for gassing the Kurds) – he is being fed stuff by the left.
He who touches pitch is defiled, and he who (however noble his motives) allies himself with the left (in the sense of the media and academia) lays himself open to the poison they will put into his mind. His voice becomes no longer his own, but is used to spread propaganda against both his own nation and the West in general.
Rich Paul:
As Gabriel points out the neocons are not “religous fanatics” they are mostly moderate Jews (some of them believe in the Jewish religion and some do not but are ethnically Jewish). They are also moderate in their politics – being social democrat types.
Of course this does not stop some other Jews, such as George Soros, spending vast sums of money against them.
A classic example was the recent move against Paul W.
Being the hard hearted libertarian that I am I would like to see the “World Bank” (and the I.M.F.) abolished.
But Paul W. (being a neocon) believed in it – he really thought that, if reformed, it could help reduce poverty in the world.
His girlfriend (“companion”, “partner” whatever the modern term is) worked for the World Bank and (although many other important people at the World Bank have girlfriends who work there) it was considered a bad thing for her to continue to work there.
However, Paul W. did not want to get involved in the business of her leaving the Bank or getting a new job.
However, (and this is the interesting bit) the “Ethics Committee” of the World Bank told him HE HAD TO BE INVOLVED.
So he acted as he was told – and then all Hell broke loose. “World Bank President organizes new job with higher pay for girl friend” screamed the headlines in all the mainstream media – and the same people at the Bank who told him that had to act in this way, now went after him.
He had walked into a classic trap organized by my fellow countryman Maddox-Brown (who just happens to work for George Soros).
Of course the real corruption at the World Bank is never talked about in the liberal-left media. And will go on without check now Paul W. has been disposed of.
Of course, if I was George Bush (and did not want to just abolish the World Bank), I would name John Bolton as the new head of the World Bank (and watch the left have a fit). However, being what he is, he will most likely try and make friends with people who are determined to destroy him (have a look at the recent cave in over the trade deals – even the establishment “Economist” was shocked by how much he just gave way).
The last I heard George Bush say about the matter was that he was sure everyone involved, on all sides, had acted in good faith.
As so often with President Bush it is hard to know whether he is just being stupid, or whether he was making an ironic comment (he is capable of humour).
Ideas from Rothbard (really from the left via Hollywood and other such, but Rothbard reflected them) are many – and if I do not read carefully (and I admit I have been in a hurry) I miss some of them.
Looking back at one of Rich Paul’s comments I now see this line “the I.R.A. reacted to English occupation”. I guess this supposed to be about Strongbow and the other Anglo Normans who came to Ireland in the late 1160’s (at the request of one of the Irish Kings – Ireland being divided into several kingships that had been fighting each other for centuries) and after (who says that living in a place for almost a thousand years makes your families native). Many of the famous Irish families (such as Edmund Burke’s mother’s people the Nagles. indeed the Burkes themselves – and of course anyone with a name like “Butler”, “Fitzgerald” – or “Fitz” anything and so on) were Anglo-Normans if you trace their line back.
Now if we are talking about the modern I.R.A. they operate mostly in Ulster (at least the six counties of Ulster that are part of the United Kingdom).
The Protestants there are not mostly English at all – they are Scots. The I.R.A. also killed Catholic unionists, but that would complicate matters a bit.
The Scots of course are an Irish people (the islands between Scotland and Ireland are, at their closest point, only a couple of miles apart) so whilst many Scots did come to Ulster in the 17th century they were only going back to the place they had come from.
However, there are English family names in Ulster.
One of them is “Adams” (sound familiar?).
Yes Jerry Adams (“ex” I.R.A. Army Council and present head of S.F.) is from the line of Col. John Adams of Lincolnshire who came to Ireland at about the same time that other people form Lincolnshire created Jamestown (literally crearted it – for the buildings are of a design that one only finds in east Lincolnshire).
John Adams married into the O’Neils
You see this was the way of the times – very complex and confused.
For example, take the battle of the Yellow Ford in 1596 (the battle that I.R.A. type people are most proud of).
The commander of the “English” army was the brother in law of the comander of the “Irish” army.
People switched sides and switched religion many times.
Even the arch antiEnglish people (who at other times were arch proEnglish people) were not in favour of rugged independence – they were in the pocket of Spain or (later) France.
“But Jerry’s recent family have been pure”.
Indeed, very pure.
His father used to build bonfires on the hills overlooking Belfast during World War II – to guide in the German bombers (raids that killed many Catholics as well as many Protestants).
Or did no one ever tell you that the I.R.A. were pro Nazi during World War II – just as they were pro Soviet after it (first the Official I.R.A. – and later the Provisional I.R.A. as well).
A bit far from Murry Rothbard’s noble freedom fighters.
Rothbard operated under three assumptions (at least I am only briefly look at three of them).
Firstly that government is based on at least the tacit consent of the majority (manufactured consent but at least a passive attitude). This is often wrong – as many times the majority of a population can actively hate a government and still not be able to overturn it (because the minority is better armed and better ORGANIZED than the majority).
Secondly that the majority, if they really tried, could overturn a government. This is often false – such revolts normally fail unless they get outside assistance (normally from another government).
Thirdly (and this was an unofficial assumption).
That first the British and then the Americans are always wrong – at least in the context of war.
The British Empire did many bad things, but its enemies were normally (although not always) worse – and it was “its enemies were normally worse” that Rothbard would not accept.
Ditto the United States government has done many bad things, but the enemies of America are normally worse – and it was “the enemies of America are normally worse” that Rothbard would not accept.
To accept that an “interventionist power” could be in the right, and that a “national liberation movement” could really be a bunch of mass murdering horrors, would have blown such a bit hole in his world view that he could not accept it (and stay what he wanted to be).
For example, Rothbard would be perfectly happy with telling the story of the British slave trade. And he was right, although all major societies in history practiced slavery the British trade was (for a period of time) the biggest in its day.
However, the century plus campaign by the Royal Navy against the slave trade (all over the world) is a story that Rothbard was not fond of telling. Because such a story did not fit his world view.
That is why, although Rothbard did a lot of good work in the study of history, he is an unreliable historian. He will only tell that part of the story that fits his world view – historical events that do not fit into his ideology get ignored.
‘All those who wish to destroy freedom within a democratic nation should realize that the most reliable and the most rapid means of achieving it is war. That is the first principle of knowledge.’ – De Tocqueville.
‘Libertarians’ that support the neocon crusade for democrazy take heed.
Also, anybody that agrees with what Benito Giuliani said against Dr Paul at the GOP debate has to be an illiterate moron. What Dr Paul said was largely just reiterating what the 9/11 report, the CIA, and even the neocon Paul Wolfowitz have said. Having a long-term military presence in Saudi Arabia and imposing sanctions against Iraq did act as recruiting sergeants for Osama Bin Laden. It is frankly no more controversial than saying that treating Germany badly after World War One contributed to the rise of Adolf Hitler or saying that American and British support of Stalin, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh during WW2 contributed to the Cold War. Even the neoconservative architects of the Iraq War don’t deny that our long-term presence in Iraq has helped Al Qaeda recruitment.
Air America Radio is back on the air, bringing AM idiocy to depths that even Rush Limbaugh couldn’t achieve.
The relevance: Two nights ago, an unusually-objectionable AA host named Randi Rhoads (not just objectionable for being a moonbat, but for being one of the New Yorkers who wants all of us to live like them) started spouting off on this very topic, and talking about Paul. “He told the truth! Republicans don’t want you to tell the truth!” And so forth. It basically amounted to a 40-minute endorsement of Ron Paul.
Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas. Or at least covered in dog hair. “We gave them the gas” isn’t just profound ignorance from someone with no excuse for not knowing better. It’s an out-and-out lie from the darkest corners of the idiotarian moonbat community. And he can be judged by the company he keeps.
(And I voted for that duck socker for President, back in the day! He wasn’t that stupid back then!)
At any rate, I once said that I would sell guns or a kidney to donate money to a Fred Thompson/Condi Rice ticket. I’ll stand by that.
Well Martin anyone who has read my efforts to type (with my spelling and all) might well say I am that I am illiterate.
And as I do not believe that “we gave them the gas” (concerning the gassing of the Kurds), and I do not think that hitting anti aircraft sites in Iraq to try and reduce the capacity of Saddam to kill Muslim civilians in the north and south “no fly zones” had anything to do with 9/11 – well I guess I must be a “moron” as well.
If only I was a smart boy like you.
I have not read much Rothbard, so I cannot comment on that. I can give you my views.
In each and every war, at least one side is wrong: the aggressor. Sometimes, the other side is bad, sometimes they are worse. That does not change the fact that the aggression is wrong.
The United States is wrong when it is the aggressor. Iraq is wrong when it is the aggressor. England is wrong when it is the aggressor. Pakistan is wrong when it is the aggressor. [fill in your favorite or least favorite country name here] is wrong when it is the aggressor.
Actions are not moral or immoral based on the identity of the actor. They are moral or immoral all by themselves. This is what is not understood by the Clinton era moonbats (that means somebody who opposes an offensive war, right?) who became Bush hawks, and by the Clinton era hawks who became Bush era moonbats. The morality of a war is not dependent on the party affiliation of the United States president. It is moral if it is defensive, it is immoral if it is offensive. The war in Iraq is offensive. Therefore it is wrong. If China invaded Iraq for no apparent reason (or based on lies), China would be wrong. If England invaded Iraq for no apparent reason (or based on lies), England would be wrong. If North Korea invaded Iraq for no apparent reason (or based on lies), North Korea would be wrong.
When the United States does something wrong, it is wrong. When it does something right, it is right. When it attacks random foreign countries, it is wrong. When it defends itself against attack, it is right.
I hope that this has been instructive to those who have no idea what the word “principal” means.
That is perhaps the most wrong headed thesis I have read as a comment in, well, quite possibly ever.
It assumes one very important thing: a political entity called a nation has an intrinsic moral right to exist simply by virtue of being a nation and thus attacking it is wrong in and of itself regardless of that nation’s nature… and by your examples you make it clear you think attacking, say, Iceland (a model liberal democracy) in order to appropriate its fish stocks or attacking North Korea (an open air prison camp) to end the most brutal totalitarian regime currently in existence on the planet is no different.
Thus attacking a nation who does not threaten its neighbour but is exterminating part of its population because they believe in God wrongly or are ‘inferior’ or are Jews/Left Handed/wrong tribe is no different to aggression against a nation in order to steal its oil/goats/women, because ‘aggression is wrong’.
But why is aggression against a nation more wrong that aggression within a nation? Is nothing the political leadership does capable of alienating that nation’s alleged right to exist free of aggression from outside?
Your simplistic calculus imbues a moral right to exist free from the risk of external attack to the most violent and brutal states upon no other basis other that ‘aggression is wrong’. Would you extend the same logic to your neighbour who likes to torture members of his family to death, just as long as he does not pose a threat to you because you are not related? Why do you think nations are so morally special?
Rich Paul.
If the people of Iraq want Western troops out they can vote for a government that tells them to go – such parties already exist in the Parliament of Iraq, if they were a majority this is what would happen.
It may shock you but the name of a person who would be very happy to hear the words “we can stand on our feet, we do not need you anymore” is GEORGE WALKER BUSH.
It is not “aggression” to fight the head hackers and suicide bombers in Iraq (or anywhere else).
It may not be the correct move – but it is not “aggression”.
Sorry but there are worse things than Uncle Sam in this world.
And (Rothbard and co to the contrary) they include the Confederate slave power, the Kaiser’s Germany (the real Ludwig Von Mises reported how this was dominated by dreams of world conquest – although this might come as a shock to people at the institute that carries his name), Hitler’s Germany and Togo’s Japan (sorry economic sanctions imposed after the invasion of China do NOT make the attack in 1941 “blow back”) and the Marxists (in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada and so on).
The bad guys also include O.B.L. and all those (both Sunni and Shia) who interpret Islam to mean the extermination or enslavment of all non Muslims and all moderate Muslims.
I.E. the bady guys include the headhackers and suicide bombers in Iraq (and everywhere else).
Unless one thinks it is all “blow back” for Jefferson’s intervention against the noble Muslim sea warriors in North Africa, or for the evil armed resistance of the Byzantines (and other Christians, Jews, and others) to Islamic conquests.
However, I think that Barbary pirates and other people who take this interpretation of Islam (from the 6th century to the present) are the real “aggressors” both against nonMuslims and against decent Muslims.