I Know Ron Paul Is Not Very Popular Here, But...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

and Roger, you should be for the guy for the simple fact that he really pisses off republicans like Lindsey Graham (for instance)

Stalin pissed off Hitler, but that doesn't mean I have to be for Uncle Joe.

[East Coast Hustle]

Hilary's argument seems to boil down to "Sometimes working with dictators is advantageous."  So, I guess, so much for morality...

surely you're not trying to tie morality and politics together?

[hooplala]

Hilary's argument seems to boil down to "Sometimes working with dictators is advantageous."  So, I guess, so much for morality...

surely you're not trying to tie morality and politics together?

I know, I'm deluded...

[East Coast Hustle]

I'm pretty sure that America's ruthless application of realpolitik is largely responsible for elevating us above our other english-speaking vassal states. We'll make an exception for the Brits, who figured it out but just didn't have the stomach to see it through to its natural conclusion.

[Disco Pickle]

I'm pretty sure that America's ruthless application of realpolitik is largely responsible for elevating us above our other english-speaking vassal states. We'll make an exception for the Brits, who figured it out but just didn't have the stomach to see it through to its natural conclusion.

That, and The Prince

[hooplala]

I'm pretty sure that America's ruthless application of realpolitik is largely responsible for elevating us above our other english-speaking vassal states. We'll make an exception for the Brits, who figured it out but just didn't have the stomach to see it through to its natural conclusion.

Elevated in which sense?

[East Coast Hustle]

In the sense that when this whole house of cards goes down, you're all going to say that it's our fault.

[Cain]

I cant see any videos on this new laptop yet (installing shit now), but at a guess, I'm going to guess Ron Paul's arguments go somewhat like this:

Blah blah blah inalieable rights to be just like Americans irrespective of cultural and political history blah blah isolationism blah blah balanced budget blah blah totally ignore US dependence on Europe and Japan for money blah blah Russia bad.

Am I near?  Because that has been pretty much his entire foreign policy stance since 1980.  Sure, it's different to the common US foreign policy consensus that exists, but that doesn't make it any better, only a different kind of stupid.

[Cain]

I'm pretty sure that America's ruthless application of realpolitik is largely responsible for elevating us above our other english-speaking vassal states. We'll make an exception for the Brits, who figured it out but just didn't have the stomach to see it through to its natural conclusion.

That, and The Prince

LOL no.

American "ruthlessness" isn't even on a par with the Belgian experience in Africa.  Its historical empire building is modest, and its current actions are embarrassing.  Sure, Britain, France et al also picked up small countries and shook them down for loose change now and again, but they didn't base an entire foreign policy around the concept.  Plus they didn't let their vassals control the purse strings.  They kept the industrial and financial power base within their core territory.

As for the Prince, if we'd followed Machiavelli's advice, we would have invaded the Soviet Union before they obtained the Bomb.  Everyone knew they were reaching for it, and he advocates striking first, because delaying wars is only to an enemies advantage.  I'm pretty sure if they followed his other advice, America would be more respected by other countries too.  But as it is, everyone knows so long as they have effective air defenses and some effective guerrilla training for their ground forces, the American military is not to be feared, and its current actions mean very few love it either.

The problem isn't that America supports dictators per se, since pretty much every country does, its that it supports them for stupid and counterproductive reasons and lets them lead them by the nose for their own purposes.   

[hooplala]

I cant see any videos on this new laptop yet (installing shit now), but at a guess, I'm going to guess Ron Paul's arguments go somewhat like this:

Blah blah blah inalieable rights to be just like Americans irrespective of cultural and political history blah blah isolationism blah blah balanced budget blah blah totally ignore US dependence on Europe and Japan for money blah blah Russia bad.

Am I near?  Because that has been pretty much his entire foreign policy stance since 1980.  Sure, it's different to the common US foreign policy consensus that exists, but that doesn't make it any better, only a different kind of stupid.

Not really... he is basically asking why is it that the USA support dictators around the world until their regime starts to crumble, and then they flip and say "YAY democracy!"... there's more to it, but that's the gist of his opening statement.

[LMNO]

I'm guessing because "Stability Is Good, even if it comes at the cost of torturing and repressing thousands of brown people."

[Cain]

Well that's simple: US foreign policy conflicts with the Accepted State Rhetoric and internal political discourses, so when the two conflict, they're going to be fickle bastards and play both sides while taking the middle path.

[Cain]

I'm guessing because "Stability Is Good, even if it comes at the cost of torturing and repressing thousands of brown people."

I don't think the USA really cares about stability at all.

See: invasion of Iraq, threatening Iran every three weeks (whether it needed it or not), sabre-rattling with Syria, tac-nuke program, de facto endorsing Saudi troops rolling into Bahrain, supporting Islam Karimov etc etc for more.

In fact, I would say the US welcomes international disorder, because it then justifies the ever-increasing military budget, US interventionism, declaring minor foreign nations key threats/interests and so on and so forth.

If anything, I think the USA really fears the possibility of world democratisation and peace, because then there would be no need for the US to defend against threats (which is how it gained its position in the first place, through WWII/Cold War/War on Terror) and be the "necessary nation", with all the benefits that entails.

[LMNO]

Hm.  Valid points, all.

I suppose I was thinking more narrowly, as in, "If the leaders of Egypt, Tunisia, et al were such dictators, why were we supporting their regime?"

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Hm.  Valid points, all.

I suppose I was thinking more narrowly, as in, "If the leaders of Egypt, Tunisia, et al were such dictators, why were we supporting their regime?"

*points at our entire history as a nation*