Cutting through Inaugural rhetoric

[Happy Monkey]

Add Ron Paul (R-TX) to the list of liberal-leaning Republicans.

[iamthewalrus109]

When one thinks about it, in many ways, some classic conservatives would be considered liberal today. Two great cases are Dick Nixon and Barry Goldwater. The glaring example from Goldwater's idealogy is the concept of not invading people's homes with what the government thinks, period. Before his fairly recent death, he was not pleased with the Christian right's attempt to intrude on the lives of citizens through gestures to Bush, he believed in no overt government intrusion in the personal lives of citizens. With Dick Nixon, there's a number of examples, but one striking one, one that made him many enemies, is detente, and his backdoor shuttle diplomacy. There's no way people on the JCS, defense contractors, and the military-industrial complex would ever want detente with the Russians, especially then.

-Walrus

[russotto]

You only learn that interventionism is a cause for terrorism if you take some of Osama bin Laden's proclamations at face value.

Perhaps Osama would have preferred if the US had failed to intervene in Afghanistan.... when the USSR held it.

[Torrere]

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/link...brzezinski.htm

According to Carter's NSA advisor (trying to take credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union), the United States began stirring up the mujahideen several months before the Soviet invasion, in an attempt to give the Soviets a Vietnam of their own.

[Griff]

Pretty damning of the Carter administration. eh? Is the interview real?

[russotto]

Originally Posted by Griff

Pretty damning of the Carter administration. eh? Is the interview real?

Why is it damning? Pretty typical Cold War stuff, I think.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by russotto

Why is it damning? Pretty typical Cold War stuff, I think.

Because it lead directly to two big fucking towers in NYC hitting the ground. Now I mean this in the best possible way. Get your fucking interventionist head out of your ass. That road should be closed to us.

[iamthewalrus109]

Originally Posted by russotto

You only learn that interventionism is a cause for terrorism if you take some of Osama bin Laden's proclamations at face value.

Perhaps Osama would have preferred if the US had failed to intervene in Afghanistan.... when the USSR held it.

Regardless of the comment above, and regardless of the Afgan war, the effects of interventionism, starting with our imperial era conquest of the Phillipines, has always landed the US into more trouble than its worth. As we "export" "democracy", our own democratic rights and freedoms are impinged due to the metteling of the defense/corporate arm of this country. Capitalism depends on new enterprises and an abundacy of resources. As we strafe the earth of what's left, precious time and the environment are laid to waste. For the world to be entirely free and enterprising a new frontier has to be saught and as long as jaugernauts like the US bully smaller countries into our way of thinking, resentment will be at a all time high.

As far as intervention goes, it comes down to rationale. What is the United States' true rationale for interveing or invading, many see it as greed and averest. Even at the most idealistic, the US invades a country like Iraq, for it's own security and freedom, which in and of itself is greedy and selfish. As I have said before its all but for a few. The biggest lemon sold to the US public is that the rich's intrests and money making is what makes the peons money.

-Walrus

[russotto]

We tried isolationism. The world wouldn't leave us alone (Britain in WWI, Japan in WWII). That avenue is closed to us.

[iamthewalrus109]

Originally Posted by russotto

We tried isolationism. The world wouldn't leave us alone (Britain in WWI, Japan in WWII). That avenue is closed to us.

Why does it have to be isolationism? I didn't say that, but over extension on every possible front? Why must we adhere to this type of doctrine. This obviously isn't WWII, and I don't think having a standing military on almost every continent of the world is the answer? Accordingly, the world didn't want to leave us alone? you think seizing lands in the far East didn't embolden Japan to strike, or the Germans to strike North Atlantic sea ways in WWI, due to the trade of munitions? Yes, I agree putting the preverbial genie back in the bottle is impossible, but this does not mean that a scaling back and long term dissengament shouldn't start to happen. Not isolationsim, but a revised world awarness and interventionism should be in order. Have the events of the last 30 years taught us nothing. Furthermore, any sort of intevention by this country will only include greater and more impressive examples of militiraism, occupation, and war.

-Walrus