---
yes ... even to the extent of dismantling their government, if
necessary
but, remember, this is not about controlling resources or protecting
one foreign government from another
backatcha:
If the US stops providing military support to israel and their enemies
attack them should we interfere?
remember, israel has spied on us, killed our soldiers, corrupted our
politicians and promotes socialism in our nation
On Oct 3, 9:50 am, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey PlainOl', (And Michael, Bruce, and all other Ron Paul Supporters here
> in PF!)
>
> I have a question, I think it's rather simple. I am going to give a
> hypothetical:
>
> "If Mexico decides to revert back to 19th or early 20th century technology,
> and the Nation chooses to dump all of its sewers, waste streams both
> residential and commercial, (which would potentially include chemical waste
> and toxins, leachates, etc.) into a system that is untreated, and the
> stream of waste is dumped into the Gulf of Mexico, where the Nation of
> Mexico builds a pipe in international waters to divert this stream away from
> its coast, where eventually, it is going to end up on American beaches and
> shorelines, would we as a Nation have a right to interfere, or to stop such
> a waste stream?"
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:20 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Beginning in the early part of the twentieth century, people like
> > Woodrow Wilson began supposing that we had the right and duty to be
> > the world's keepers, and they have proceeded to mess things up around
> > the world ever since.
> > ----
> > spot on!
>
> > those who think the US should interfere in the internal affairs of
> > other nations and fund their militaries should fight and fund their
> > own charities without US tax dollars and soldiers
>
> > you're either an American or something else
>
> > On Oct 1, 10:05 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > The Cult of Reagan, and Other Neocon Folliesby Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
> > > Some time agoThe American Spectator's Jeffrey Lord claimed Ron Paul's
> > foreign policy of nonintervention was "liberal," and that conservatives are
> > supposed to be hawkish on foreign policy. Now to some extent, no one really
> > cares about these labels, and who qualifies as what. But it is obviously
> > false to say that supporters of nonintervention must be left-liberals. I
> > showed this in my YouTube response, which dismantled Lord's entire position:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YpP80_J5N8&feature=player_embeddedIfi...that would be it. There is no wiggle room left for Lord after that.
> > As Gary North put it, "The lesson here is simple: don't get Woods on your
> > case if you are saying really stupid things about American history."
> > > Yet hecame back for more. With a busy schedule both personally and
> > professionally, I have only now had the time to respond, which I'm doing in
> > a series of bullet points.
> > > 1) I pointed out in the video that the anti-imperialist movement in the
> > late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was dominated by the
> > conservatives, as historian William Leuchtenberg has noted. I likewise
> > pointed out that we may count on one hand the number of Progressives who
> > opposed U.S. entry into World War I. I further noted that the recent
> > interventions Lord supports were likewise supported by Hillary Clinton,
> > Howard Stern, theNew York Times, and theWashington Post(among others I
> > mentioned). Before Lord goes attacking other people for their tactical
> > alliances, he might make note of the beam in his own eye.
> > > Lord does not acknowledge any of this. I wouldn't, either, were I in his
> > shoes.
> > > 2) Lord is obsessed with Ronald Reagan, and again condemns Ron Paul for
> > opposing Reagan's expansion of government power. The weird cult of
> > personality around the deceased former president reveals that Reagan has
> > become the Right's Obama: a man whose every action is to be treated as ipso
> > facto brilliant, perhaps even divinely inspired. Critics are mere heretics
> > whose arguments need not actually be refuted; the mere fact that they have
> > disagreed with the Great Leader is enough to condemn them forever.
> > > How dare you say Ronald Reagan wasn't free-market enough! He supported
> > the free market to the precisely correct extent, says the Supreme Neocon
> > Council.
> > > That Lord is more interested in someone's loyalty toa manthan he is in
> > loyalty to the principles that the man was supposed to represent, is the
> > classic expression of a cult of personality.
> > > 3) In pointing out that Felix Morley, one of the founding editors of the
> > weekly conservative newspaperHuman Events, was himself a noninterventionist,
> > it was obviously not my intention to argue thatHuman Eventsfavors
> > nonintervention abroad as an editorial position. I myself have been
> > published and interviewed numerous times inHuman Events, so I'm quite
> > familiar with its editorial line. The point is that Lord describes
> > nonintervention as a "liberal" (as in left-liberal, not classical liberal)
> > position. As long as I can find some indisputably non-liberal supporters of
> > nonintervention, I win. No one in his right mind would consider Morley a
> > left-liberal. But Morley is simply Exhibit A.
> > > 4) Here's Exhibit B: Lord's own superior atThe American Spectator, senior
> > editor Angelo Codevilla. Speaking on the Mike Church Show about the
> > bipartisan foreign-policy consensus to which Lord and Levin subscribe,
> > Codevilla said:This is a radical departure from the way that America's
> > status in the world was built in the first place. It was built by a founding
> > generation and the statesmen of the nineteenth century who adhered to the
> > traditional view that the governors of any country are the stewards of the
> > interests of that country only, and they are not entitled in any way to
> > interfere in the affairs of other countries….Beginning in the early part of
> > the twentieth century, people like Woodrow Wilson began supposing that we
> > had the right and duty to be the world's keepers, and they have proceeded to
> > mess things up around the world ever since.What I try to do in this book [A
> > Student's Guide to International Relations] is to explain…that the world
> > really is filled with people who are really different, who really do think
> > differently, and that they work in an international system which gives them
> > full rein, full capacity to be what it is they want, and that makes it
> > impossible for foreigners to conduct their affairs.In other words,
> > imperialism has always been something of a losing proposition, especially in
> > the modern international system, and our ruling class's attempt to
> > nation-build the world in their own image is doomed to failure and to
> > creating one disaster after another….[Other countries] have, according to
> > our Founding Fathers, every right to be as benighted, backward, and nasty to
> > one another as they want. The Declaration of Independence says all men are
> > created equal, all nations have the right to be who they are…. The
> > Declaration of Independence claimed no special rights for the American
> > people. It claimed for the American people the rights that the American
> > people recognized in the rest of mankind….Americans, like the rest of
> > mankind, have an inalienable right to self-determination. Now that's not
> > simply a theoretical statement. It's also a practical one. Because it is
> > utterly impossible for one people to transfer its own ethos, its own notion
> > of good and evil, its own way of doing things, to another. The Afghans, the
> > Arabs, are who they are; they have grown up in a particular culture. It is
> > what they know, what they love. As John Quincy Adams would have put it, who
> > has appointed us as judges over them?Codevilla also shot off a one-liner
> > against the chickenhawk phenomenon; when Church asked him about neocon Bill
> > Kristol, Codevilla replied: "And by the way, I served in the armed forces….
> > Billy didn't at all."
> > > 5) For Exhibits C, D, E, and on through the alphabet, see Bill Kauffman's
> > bookAin't My America: The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and
> > Middle American Anti-Imperialism, which I reviewedhere.
> > > 6) Catholic University's Claes Ryn, who is more conservative than Lord
> > and his entire circle of friends put together, has explained the difference
> > between conservatism as classically understood on the one hand, and the
> > militant Jacobin universalism to which Lord and the neoconservatives
> > subscribe on the other. It should hardly be necessary to point out that the
> > "global leadership" propaganda and the endless "democracy" project GOP
> > candidates urge us to embrace is completely foreign to the finite goals and
> > expectations of a conservative. A sample from Ryn's speech to the
> > Philadelphia Society:Because universality manifests itself variously, the
> > conservative is no narrow-minded nationalist. He is a cosmopolitan. This
> > does not mean that he is a free floater, at home everywhere and nowhere.
> > That describes the Jacobin ideologue. The conservative is a patriot, deeply
> > rooted in the best of his own heritage. It is because he is so attached to
> > what is most admirable in his own culture that he can understand and
> > appreciate corresponding achievements in other cultures. He is able to find
> > in different places variations on a common human theme. The culturally
> > distinctive contributions of other peoples deepen and enrich his awareness
> > of goodness, truth and beauty.The Jacobin is not interested in diversity,
> > only in imposing his blueprint. What history happens to have thrown up is
> > just an obstacle to what ought to be. Only what is "simply right" deserves
> > respect. It's all so obvious.Conservatives see in Jacobin principles a
> > hair-raising obliviousness of life's complexity. To implement such
> > principles may devastate a society. A society may be wholly unsuited or
> > unprepared for changes demanded of it. So what, say America's neo-Jacobins.
> > We need moral clarity. What was there before does not matter. "Democracy"
> > must take its place. One model fits all. To ensure a democratic world,
> > America must establish armed and uncontested world supremacy.The will to
> > power is here bursting at the seams. What argument could be better for
> > placing enormous power in the hands of the neo-Jacobins than a grandiose
> > scheme for remaking the world. At lunch yesterday we got to hear
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment