...he seemed to make a lot of sense in this video. http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2011/03/01/ron-paul-vs-hillary-clinton-on-supporting-dictators/ (http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2011/03/01/ron-paul-vs-hillary-clinton-on-supporting-dictators/) (apologies if this has already been posted)
Any thoughts?
Will watch this later when I'm not on-shift.
I don't do politics in the office (shared computer, you understand.)
Will watch if I remember whan I get home.
as far as i know, i'm the only one on the board who was/is a fan or Ronpaul, so i definitely have an obligation to watch it when i get home a bit and then post that i agree.
:wink:
I will have watch the video later.
I have mixed feelings about Ron Paul, but I am tickled at the fact that he is now the chairman of the committee that oversees the Fed.
He's got really strong points in there. I personally don't agree with a lot of his ideas, but I do agree that we are spreading ourselves way too thin (sending troops to Libya? REALLY?!) and that we need to back the fuck away from supporting countries that could bomb the piss out of Israel with the weapons with give them. I also think we should back the fuck off of Israel, and I was hoping he'd get to that, but he didn't.
Hilary held her ground, but I wasn't impressed.
yup...
i agree with him.
:D
Ron Paul is a hypocritical cunt. I stopped giving him chances to convince me 8 years ago.
Quote from: Princess Suu the Apostate on March 02, 2011, 10:43:56 PM
He's got really strong points in there. I personally don't agree with a lot of his ideas, but I do agree that we are spreading ourselves way too thin (sending troops to Libya? REALLY?!) and that we need to back the fuck away from supporting countries that could bomb the piss out of Israel with the weapons with give them. I also think we should back the fuck off of Israel, and I was hoping he'd get to that, but he didn't.
Hilary held her ground, but I wasn't impressed.
This.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 03, 2011, 01:29:17 AM
Ron Paul is a hypocritical cunt. I stopped giving him chances to convince me 8 years ago.
Roger, i know that you see his views on earmarks as hypocritical (and you have convinced me of that matter to, ftr), but in the context of this video, do you see him as hypocritical?
Quote from: Iptuous on March 03, 2011, 02:46:20 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 03, 2011, 01:29:17 AM
Ron Paul is a hypocritical cunt. I stopped giving him chances to convince me 8 years ago.
Roger, i know that you see his views on earmarks as hypocritical (and you have convinced me of that matter to, ftr), but in the context of this video, do you see him as hypocritical?
Won't even listen to him, Ippie. I despise him and his Nazi kid. He has nothing to say that I am interested in listening to.
gotcha.
fair enough.
Hilary's argument seems to boil down to "Sometimes working with dictators is advantageous." So, I guess, so much for morality...
Quote from: Hoopla on March 03, 2011, 02:30:57 PM
Hilary's argument seems to boil down to "Sometimes working with dictators is advantageous." So, I guess, so much for morality...
Awww Hoops honey don't feel bad. Hillary waived her morality option when she married Bill..... It's in the pre-nup right after he can screw anyone he wants as long as she can be the man of the family. :lulz:
yep, agree. his foreign policy positions have always resonated with me.
and Roger, you should be for the guy for the simple fact that he really pisses off republicans like Lindsey Graham (for instance)
anything that brings the rage to bill kristol type republicans gives me the warm and fuzzies.
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on March 03, 2011, 03:48:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Hoopla on March 03, 2011, 02:30:57 PM
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? :lulz:
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 03, 2011, 06:53:04 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on March 03, 2011, 02:30:57 PM
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? :lulz:
I know, I'm deluded...
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.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 03, 2011, 09:15:56 PM
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
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 03, 2011, 09:15:56 PM
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?
In the sense that when this whole house of cards goes down, you're all going to say that it's our fault.
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.
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on March 03, 2011, 09:25:59 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 03, 2011, 09:15:56 PM
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.
Quote from: Cain on March 06, 2011, 12:12:12 PM
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.
I'm guessing because "Stability Is Good, even if it comes at the cost of torturing and repressing thousands of brown people."
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 16, 2011, 01:36:19 PM
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.
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?"
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 16, 2011, 02:45:49 PM
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*
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2011, 04:12:51 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 16, 2011, 02:45:49 PM
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*
Though to be fair, the first bit of our history was pretty isolationist and "exporting democracy" wasn't anything we were interested in. If Egypt had a dictator that was Egypt's problem. However, since WWI, we've made it pretty clear we will fucking anything if it gets us ahead somehow. Dictators, Revolutions, Patsies, Puppets and Bogymen... its all good if it's to the short term benefit of the US.
:lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 16, 2011, 04:18:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2011, 04:12:51 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 16, 2011, 02:45:49 PM
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*
Though to be fair, the first bit of our history was pretty isolationist and "exporting democracy" wasn't anything we were interested in. If Egypt had a dictator that was Egypt's problem. However, since WWI, we've made it pretty clear we will fucking anything if it gets us ahead somehow. Dictators, Revolutions, Patsies, Puppets and Bogymen... its all good if it's to the short term benefit of the US.
:lulz:
For real fun, look at our history between 1865 and 1918.