A Political Thread

[WTL]

***This thread deals with politics. There are always a few people who complain about politics on the board. The solution is simple; dont read this if that is you. There are no funny jokes, word games or bad farks hidden within, so no excuse....Now, if you are interested in foreign policy, read on.***


I am trying to answer 3 questions.

1. Why the position taken by Ron Paul on foreign policy makes pretty good sense, and is nowhere near what Michelle Bachman characterized as "dangerous".

2. What are your opinions on originalism (the idea that when interpreting the Constitution, we try to ascertain the view of those who wrote the document)?

3. What is your opinion on the Courts using judicial precedent in their judgments?

__________________________________________________ ______________---------------------------------------------------------------------


This is going to be a long and detailed post, and should be, as the subject is of vital importance – the difference between war and peace.

For those who don’t wish to read the long version, I am going to try to enclose a synopsis of a paragraph;

There is widespread disagreement among even the intelligence community as to whether Iran poses any threat to the US, or even immediate Israeli interests. Do not fall for the canard that there is a consensus that Iran is an existential threat, and therefore anyone who differs in line, is crazy, irresponsible or as Bachman stated “giving the most dangerous national security response of all time.” The hyperbole on their part is actually indicative of the inherit weakness of position, and a fear that certain entrenched segments of the GOP have of the new guard of the Republican party being less interested in war and more in peace and prosperity. In actuality, it is Bachman who holds the minority position – she is the dangerous one – the one whose would take us into unnecessary war as an easy way of achieving political support.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a few principals which Paul normally tries to get out there during a debate, but due to his age, lack of graceful speaking style and the complexities of the matters he normally sounds weaker. But the positions, if you read them, are well thought out. I did this originally in word, and when I transferred it to post it screwed a little with the format of the outline, but oh well. You will get it.


1. Being the world policemen encourages the Axis of evil. They dig it. They want us in Iraq and Afghanistan. They want us in South Korea. It gives the dictators in their ****y little countries the political cover to blame every domestic problem on the Americans, and it also gives them a reason to try to act strong.

a. See Sadaam Hussein intentionally fool the international community into thinking he had large stockpiles of WMD. Why would he fake it as if he had WMD? Because Saddam was not worried about the US, he was worried about the Shiites in his own country. The threat of WMD kept his own people in line…so he lied about having it. He might have had a few shells of mustard gas left over, and that’s it. Playing like he was the mortal enemy of US interests also energized his Baathist base.

b. See Ahmidinejad and when he came to power – 2004. Why? Because we were in Iraq. He played fear of US influence in the region into a winning tactic for getting into power in Iran.

c. Why did we not intervene in the “Green Revolution”? Because somebody smartly realized that once the Americans touch something, it turns to**** in the eyes of those people. Its like picking up a baby bird that falls out of its nest. Doesn’t matter if the US has the best intentions. We get blamed. Why should we want to continue allowing ourselves to get blamed when we risk our soldiers for humanitarian reasons (IE Somalia), and end up screwing this up worse than it was before?

d. Look at Hugo Chavez. Why does he always spend 3 hours a night on state TV downing the US? Because he is trying to be Pepsi to our Coke. He is one of the primary anti-US guys left, and there is a market for that. And the more we openly attack him, the more his stupid supporters in the Venezulean slums rally behind him.

e. Are these examples too foreign to comprehend? OK, look at Rudy Guiliani “The American Hero”. What, precisely, did he do in the aftermath of 9/11 that was so heroic? Beats me. He was presiding Mayor of the hardest hit city. Yet by doing what any other mayor in America would do in that situation, he became a hero.

f. Look at George W. Bush. He too, stayed pretty calm and did relatively little following 9/11 for a few months. While he was doing little, his poll numbers went to 90%. That’s a record for a modern president. He got the same bounce that Ahmadinejad would get if we attack Iran.

g. Look at Pakistan. Do we attack Pakistan? No. Why? They have nukes. So, we have to treat them with kid gloves.

h. Look at North Korea. Do we attack North Korea? No. Why? Cause they have nukes. So, we treat them with kid gloves.

i. Look at Libya. Do we attack Libya? Through intermediaries, yes. Why? They don’t have nukes. And we talked the dumb bastards out of getting them. – Put that all together, and what do you have? US hyperinvolvement creates incentives for countries to get Nukes. Its like a get out of jail free card. We are behind these *******s coming to power, and then behind their desire to arm up. Its actually a rational reaction on their part. If the threat of US involvement wasn’t looming over each of these countries, there would not be as large of an incentive to develop nukes.

2. It is a principle long adhered to among Republicans that sometimes, the thing that sounds right, that sounds good in a soundbyte, is actually a bad policy.

A. Anybody who has ever argued against taxes for the wealthy, against the safety net, against social security, against the department of education understands this principle. Where else does it apply?

a. Foreign Policy is the greatest area where this principle applies. In foreign policy, the rough riders are the ones who are beloved. The aggressive, the heroic, the belligerent. Cheat on your wife? Well, just go bomb a Balkan country and we’ll forgive you. Is your popularity waning? Lets settle that old score in Iraq. Want to look tough on communism? Hey, lets send advisors to that Southeast Asian country that the French got beat down in, to help the natives fight off a popular communist revolution. What happens if a boat in a harbor explodes in port in Havana, and the popular wisdom is that it was sabotage? Well, lets blame the Spanish and take all their empire!

b. I wont delve into whether the war with Spain was wise, or WWI or WW2. But lets look at the modern American wars.

i. What did we solve in Korea? We set a precedent where the President can act unilaterally, involve us in a war with no end, and there we remain, almost 60 years later.

ii. Vietnam. Without hearts and minds, you cannot win. And you don’t win hearts and minds by sending in the Marines. 58,000 American men dead.

iii. Kuwait. It could have been the feelgood story of American involvement. We did everything right. We had a huge, international coalition. We were protecting a smaller country against a bully. We had a US interest in the area (oil). We won quickly and decisively. But then we lost. Why? Cause we didn’t kill Hussein, and the problem festered. So the lesson is we should have killed Hussein then. Although that would have probably led to the same insurgency that we saw in the early 2000s, and the strengthening of Iran just 12 years after their revolution (itself a reaction to US involvement in the 1950s). Are you people getting the point? When we get involved and we lose lots of men and money, we lose. When we get involved, and achieve our shortterm goals, and lose few men, we still lose.

c. Also thought I would remind everyone that Saddam was an ally. So was Bin Laden (we created the Mujahadeen, just as Pakistan created the Taliban). So was Stalin. So was Qhadaffi. We have a history, in American foreign policy, of being for it, before we were against it, before we were for it.

b. But if this foreign intervention is so foolish, why do we keep doing it?

a. First, we have to distinguish ourself from the Left in all areas. The Left is supposed to be wrong on every single issue. So when a lefty calls for peace, it is the natural reaction to deride it.

b. Religious reasons. I don’t want to hit too hard on this, but some fundamentalist Christians who still hold sway believe that there is religious justification for our support of Israel. These factions identify with the hardline Israeli interests, not the more moderate Israelis who agree with land for peace and some concessions/diplomacy, and thus think that we must do whatever we can to take the military burden off of Israel as they fight to survive. The other night, I saw Bill OReilly call Dr. Pauls’ comments during the debate stupid. Then he preceded to downplay Paul’s citing a US intelligence expert who claimed to know nothing concrete of Iranian intentions, and then OReilly declared he trusted Mossad (Israeli Intelligence)’s statements about Iran’s capabilities more than our own. My jaw just about hit the floor. Here we have that boor OReilly calling Ron Paul stupid, and in the same sentence, outsourcing American security and interests to Israel’s most militant interests! How dare he! But this man directs others to think a certain way. Anybody reading this must admit that Fox News and the line most of their commentators espouse has a direct and strong influence on all the grannies and grandpas watching.

c. The military industrial complex. Anytime someone tries to poopoo talk of this as being a conspiracy theory, remember who coined the phrase. The split in the Republican party between anti-war conservatives and pro-war conservatives occurred in the early 50s. Taft was running and set to win the nomination. He was against most foreign involvement,. He was known as “Mr. Republican”. Fear of Mr. Taft led people to draft Ike to run against Taft. Ike of course won, Taft died a couple years later, and national security/anticommunism have been two planks of the GOP ever since. But before Taft died, he and Ike actually became friends. After Taft had died, in his last speech as President, Ike, the military general, the one hand selected to prevent the GOP from returning to non-interventionism, echoed the old rights’s concerns about the military industrial complex. American spends 3 times as much as any other country on defense. Don’t doubt the complex exists.


3. What could be?

a. Every time there is a budget battle in Washington, the democrats use national security as a pawn to scare republicans into not cutting enough, either taxes or spending. What if the GOP were to suddenly turn non-interventionist? It would give the GOP a huge advantage in budget negotiations, as we can now find that we can cut a huge amount of Pentagon spending, find common ground with bewildered democrats, and push through a plan that has a fighting chance of at least reducing the current debt madness we are embroiled in. Which leads me to Dr. Pauls last point, normally.

b. We are effectively broke. Right now we have the option of an orderly withdrawal of US forces. Soon, that will no longer be an option. It is akin to both the fall back of the British and Roman empires. They intervened abroad until they were dead in the center. The British were lucky to be allies with the Americans in WWII. The Romans weren’t so lucky, and were sacked. We are becoming the sick old superpower, that everyone knows is going to fall. But it is reversible,. The American century was not so because of our bombs, subs, ships or soldiers. All the other countries have had the same. It was our century because our economy became so explosive, so vital, that we became the indispensable world power. That power came from American ingenuity at home, innovation, hard work, resources, law, freedom, all the core components of Dr. Paul’s domestic policy. Dr. Paul’s foreign policy works primarily because his domestic policy is so strong. With it, we will see a quick depression – and then a liquidation of the malinvestment of the last decade. After 2, maybe 3 years of a contracting economy, housing prices will be at equilibrium, debt will be manageable, and the economy will explode again. Why? Because of the American people. Don’t ever trust a politician who says they will deliver jobs. That is the province of the American people, applying their skills, knowledge, innovation and desire to create production, which is the engine of wealth. It is only up to the government to create the environment that jobs are created in, with order, and law and justice and free enterprise.


One last thing. The Constitution vests the full power to declare war in the US Congress. Paul is no longer running for Congress. He is running for President. He is the only candidate running for President in the last 14 years who actually believes that it is the role of congress, and not the President, to declare war. As such a strict constitutionalist, should Congress declare war, even if Paul disagrees, I believe that he will do his duty as commander-in-chief. It is important to note that the primary power that people have been downing Paul for, is, according to Paul, not one of the powers he wants.





You asked me about my thoughts on originalism in interpretation and adherence to judicial precedent. I think that trying to determine the original meaning of the Constitution is what the first purpose of the Supreme Court should be. If the original meaning of the text is clear, its not the duty of the Court to try and get around it. The problem with this is the necessary and proper clause, which authorizes Congress to do what is necessary to carry out its enumerated powers. It effectively expands power, as it should –without the clause, Congress would be pretty impotent even to carry out its enumerated powers. Then you have judicial interpretations of the meaning of the commerce clause, which in my opinion after NRLB steel and especially Wikard v. Filburn went off the reservation. The Court tried to reign in the expansion of the clause in the mid 90s, but it really had little practical change IMO. The upcoming Obamacare case will be huge, but I’m afraid it will be upheld unless they want to turn their back on Wickard.

Respect for judicial precedent is one of those things that makes good sense, but only to a point. People need to know what the law is, and have a rational basis to believe it will probably remain the same. But when there are so many bad precedents set, like I would argue Roe and Wickard and Kelo, those do need to be overruled. Oftentimes the Court uses respect for precedent as an excuse for whatever they may find. The shocking, perhaps not too shocking thing I think people find when they study constitutional law is the variation in the Courts opinions, the weird angles, the places where even people who are supposed to be textualists stop reading the plain text (Scalia, from time to time can be accused of not following the text despite his reputation). Its an incredibly hard job to apply a 200 year old document, and the question is, when arguments can be made for either interpretation, which one do you choose? The tiebreaker is often personal political ideas, hidden by clever justifications, or sometimes, adherence to precedent.

[nofearengineer]

Billy, I am going to have a lot of fun with this thread. As you might expect, I will agree with some, refute other parts, and scratch my head at the rest.

However, unlike you, I am not on vacation, and I'm pretty sure my boss doesn't care to foster my political development. It may be this weekend before I get a chance to process it all.

Looks like good reading though.

[joedog]

And I'm going to sit and watch!
This has promise to become very interesting!
WTL, good read, deep (I know I was warned) but still good.
I'll confess, had to re-read alot of parts.......but I think I'm better informed now.

[kennethdaysale]

WTL.....thanks that was an interesting read. I will be quick to admit that I am not the sharpest tool in this shed, I do not hold myself out as some kind of scholar or foreign policy expert. I was born and raised a military dependant, my father was a career soldier and fought in WW2 and Korea. We were Democrats from the south and I blindly accepted that position simply because "thats the what daddy and gdaddy and them" believed. Only later in life as I met with some success and earned some money did I find myself leaning to the right.
Anyway regarding some of the points you posted
#1 Quoting Bachman? Why? picking the weakest adversary makes your position look strong by default? I don't know...just wondering.
#2 Trying to minimize our relationship with political Israel or Biblical Israel is far more dangerous than you seem to realize. I would encourage you to spend some time carefully researching this relationship and what it really means to U.S. and us.
#3 I understand the whole blowback theory and I would agree with some of it, even so I believe that even if we built a great wall around our country and just let the world spin, the muslim world would still be actively and aggressively planning our destruction. That is of course right after they turn Israel into dust.
I wish we could go back to the fifties and make different decisions, but since that isn't possible we must behave in a way that accepts current realities, and even though I like a lot of Mr. Pauls fiscal positions I just can't get on board with the rest.

[Dogmatic]

Originally Posted by kennethdaysale

That is of course right after they turn Israel into dust.

As of this moment the only country in the region capable of turning anything into dust, is Israel.

[kennethdaysale]

Originally Posted by Dogmatic

As of this moment the only country in the region capable of turning anything into dust, is Israel.

My position is that we would be wise to keep it that way. How would any other distribution of nuclear capability be considered in anyones best interest?

@wtl This matter is much bigger than the Liberty.

[Dogmatic]

Originally Posted by kennethdaysale

My position is that we would be wise to keep it that way. How would any other distribution of nuclear capability be considered in anyones best interest?

Are you so sure? Nuclear proliferation isn't in anyones interest, but is an unavoidable consequence of the world we live in, and helped shape.

[kennethdaysale]

Originally Posted by Dogmatic

Are you so sure? Nuclear proliferation isn't in anyones interest, but is an unavoidable consequence of the world we live in, and helped shape.

I'm going to pretend you didn't really say that. Good Grief.

[WTL]

I quoted Ms. Bachman because she was the one trying to prosecute Paul in the last debate. If it had been Romney, I would have gone after him just the same. Do note I also included OReilly in my post, who said something dumber than even Bachman.

Regarding the US-Israeli relationship, I have a fair amount of knowledge about it, and am wondering on just what part we should research. The bombing of the USS Liberty, for instance?

Saying that we would build a wall around the country is not technically correct. We would still trade, and because of that, we would get what we want. Our economic power is more influential than even our military power. Its actually what doomed the Russians in the Cold War, and why Gorbechev had to institute glasnost and perestroika.
There will always be muslim individuals that seek to destroy, but our active involvement in their region takes the indibviduals and gives them the glue to form a movement.



Dogmatic, you sound surprised that there is a debate on war in the GOP. But that is why the reaction to Paul was so vitriolic, the GOP had their party line, and Paul is challenging it across the base of the party. He is actually in this race not to win, but to lay the groundwork for a new understanding of political conservatism. In that respect, he is similar to Barry Goldwater.

[kennethdaysale]

Originally Posted by WTL

Dogmatic, you sound surprised that there is a debate on war in the GOP. But that is why the reaction to Paul was so vitriolic, the GOP had their party line, and Paul is challenging it across the base of the party. He is actually in this race not to win, but to lay the groundwork for a new understanding of political conservatism. In that respect, he is similar to Barry Goldwater.

I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle.
Barry Goldwater


Am I taking Barry out of context here?

[WTL]

Originally Posted by kennethdaysale

I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle.
Barry Goldwater


Am I taking Barry out of context here?

Not at all. I compare Paul to Goldwater in terms of influence inside the GOP, not of war positions. Although, on everything but war, Paul and Goldwater were similar. But look at BGs 1964 campaign, both the futility of the absolutist positions, the crying of the opponents (LBJ daisy ad, Bachman saying that Paul is the most dangerous) and then look at what happened to the Goldwater supporters when they matured - the Reagan generation was forged in 1964.

There is no doubt in my mind if Paul wins Iowa, he will be destroyed. There is a newletter that he had ghostwritten in the 1990s for him that said a few things that were not PC, and will bury him in the general election. Paul knows this. His strategy is to change the party, like Goldwater, and to have his legacy be written in 4 years when Senator Paul of Kentucky runs.

[kennethdaysale]

Originally Posted by WTL

Not at all. I compare Paul to Goldwater in terms of influence inside the GOP, not of war positions. Although, on everything but war, Paul and Goldwater were similar. But look at BGs 1964 campaign, both the futility of the absolutist positions, the crying of the opponents (LBJ daisy ad, Bachman saying that Paul is the most dangerous) and then look at what happened to the Goldwater supporters when they matured - the Reagan generation was forged in 1964.

There is no doubt in my mind if Paul wins Iowa, he will be destroyed. There is a newletter that he had ghostwritten in the 1990s for him that said a few things that were not PC, and will bury him in the general election. Paul knows this. His strategy is to change the party, like Goldwater, and to have his legacy be written in 4 years when Senator Paul of Kentucky runs.

Hey I understand that.......but..... The role of the Canary in the coal mine isn't to dig coal. Probably better and more effective ways to be the Pied Piper of isolationism than entering a Presidential race he can't win.

[Dogmatic]

Hmm...A few minor points here and there, but overall a rational argument that isn't worth debating. I was hoping, considering the current state of the GOP, a more inflammatory statement.(???)

[Dogmatic]

No, not surprised...Could the "new" line of the GOP, that Paul represents, the one that favors "Peace and Prosperity" over War, is that of pragmatism. In that without a strong economy the waging of war only leads to the lessening of our power and influence in the world. A fact that has been obvious to the "Peace loving lefties" for quite some time.

[WTL]

As far as Israel, just go ahead and spell it out rather than beat around the bush. You arent arguing just for an alliance with Israel, but specifically an alliance with the more militant Israeli elements, to the "right" of Likud. So many seem to take for granted that US military action in the region is best for israel, and I'm not even conceding that (nor are many Israelis).

[kennethdaysale]

Originally Posted by WTL

As far as Israel, just go ahead and spell it out rather than beat around the bush. You arent arguing just for an alliance with Israel, but specifically an alliance with the more militant Israeli elements, to the "right" of Likud. So many seem to take for granted that US military action in the region is best for israel, and I'm not even conceding that (nor are many Israelis).

I certainly wasn't trying to beat arounf the bush.....I am not ashamed to say that I believe that the Bible is the word of God. As such our relationship with Israel...yes Jews...goes far beyond any political ideologies. Is Israel perfect? no. Would I be foolish to turn my back on her? yes. Simple example....I love my children unconditionally, they have all disapointed me-hurt my feelings-let me down-made some poor decisions. I will continue to love them, not because I have to, not because I have anything to gain, just because I do.
I was hoping this thread would stay on point but whenever our relationship with Israel starts getting in the mix it's inevitable that someones core values will surface. I for one am not embarrassed to openly proclaim mine.

[Dogmatic]

Originally Posted by kennethdaysale

I for one am not embarrassed to openly proclaim mine.

Good for you, but do those beliefs involve "The End Times", because this is an important distinction between those that have political/religious connections to the State of Israel, and those that have "Religious Connections" to the Jews of Palestine.(Get my drift?)

[kennethdaysale]

Originally Posted by Dogmatic

Good for you, but do those beliefs involve "The End Times", because this is an important distinction between those that have political/religious connections to the State of Israel, and those that have "Religious Connections" to the Jews of Palestine.(Get my drift?)

I think I get your drift, maybe not. I will say my ancestors are scotch-irish. I have a normal size nose and my hair is straight. I'm not sure if that's where you were going. As far as end time prophecy I won't pretend to have any special insights...any speculations about correllations between Revelation and current affairs would have me "practising out of my scope"

[Dogmatic]

Originally Posted by kennethdaysale

I think I get your drift, maybe not...any speculations about correllations between Revelation and current affairs would have me "practising out of my scope"

Not really(your ethinicity was not part of it), but the final part answered the question.

[WTL]

Its fine that you believe that we as Christians have a role in being good to the Jews. I would agree with that.

But is it improper to use the State to push our religious mores? That is where I disagree across the board with those who cite the Bible when arguing policy. The Bible governs your own heart. But we leave to caesar what is caesar's. Furthermore, I am arguing for peace, you for war. Remember that.

[kennethdaysale]

Originally Posted by WTL

Its fine that you believe that we as Christians have a role in being good to the Jews. I would agree with that.

But is it improper to use the State to push our religious mores? That is where I disagree across the board with those who cite the Bible when arguing policy. The Bible governs your own heart. But we leave to caesar what is caesar's. Furthermore, I am arguing for peace, you for war. Remember that.

I am in no way arguing for war. Consider this.. I have a neighbor that has stated repeatedly that he hates me and my family and his sole purpose in life is to see me and them dead. I see him go to the store and buy lots of big guns and ammo. I see him out in his back yard target shooting (targets that are photo cut-outs of me, my wife and children). I see him load his gun and walk toward my house. I see him stand a few feet from where I'm sitting on my porch, his gun shouldered. I hear the unmistakable sound of a bolt sliding a round into the chamber and the click of a hot safety. I hear the sound of............... . At what point in this sequence would my disarming of this man be construed as naked aggression? At what point would any sane person see it as self preservation? Religious mores or giving caesar his due don't have to be talking points. (even though they are certainly worth talking about)

[WTL]

I like your analogy, but to fit, we have to expand it a bit. Say you live in a neighborhood.
In 1959, you went over to the guy next door and tore down his shed.
In 1990, you went across the street and got in between a fight regarding 2 neighbors that you had no direct link to.
In 2003, you forceably removed another neighbor from his house, and reinstalled someone else who was more in line with your tastes.
In 2001, in response to an act of agression from another neighbor, you smoked him out of his house and still havent left.
In 2011, you helped another guy as he removed another neighbor from his home.
And that guy who got overrun in his own house in 1947 by some other family from poland is still living on the street in front of you, and you are somehow totally siding with the people who kicked the first owner out.

Given these activities on your part, do you not understand that the guy right next door to you is looking into protection?

You may disagree with my characterization of each instance. I might disagree with some of them. But from the Iranian's perspective, there is good reason to be scared as hell of america and wanting to get that one magic weapon which prevents America from invading.

[Dogmatic]

Originally Posted by WTL

I like your analogy, but to fit, we have to expand it a bit. Say you live in a neighborhood.
In 1959, you went over to the guy next door and tore down his shed.
In 1990, you went across the street and got in between a fight regarding 2 neighbors that you had no direct link to.
In 2003, you forceably removed another neighbor from his house, and reinstalled someone else who was more in line with your tastes.
In 2001, in response to an act of agression from another neighbor, you smoked him out of his house and still havent left.
In 2011, you helped another guy as he removed another neighbor from his home.
And that guy who got overrun in his own house in 1947 by some other family from poland is still living on the street in front of you, and you are somehow totally siding with the people who kicked the first owner out.

Given these activities on your part, do you not understand that the guy right next door to you is looking into protection?

You may disagree with my characterization of each instance. I might disagree with some of them. But from the Iranian's perspective, there is good reason to be scared as hell of america and wanting to get that one magic weapon which prevents America from invading.

This is great...love it.

[kennethdaysale]

Having given considerable thought to every post and point I have concluded that none of us are at loggerheads nor should we be. I believe you love this country and want only the best for it and us. I am optimistic that we can work all this out. (too bad working it out isn't up to us) Of course NFE could come along and throw a monkey in the wrench...nah I guess I'm looking forward to anyones take on this.

[nofearengineer]

Damn you, Billy...you're going to get me fired.

Originally Posted by WTL

]There are a few principals which Paul normally tries to get out there during a debate, but due to his age, lack of graceful speaking style and the complexities of the matters he normally sounds weaker.

Billy, as Neanderthal as it may seem, I think age, statesmanship, and overall masculinity are important. When we are dealing with the Middle East and their androcentric culture, perceived strength is important. In the eyes of most hardline Arabs, Paul would be only slightly more intimidating than Hilary Clinton, and probably only because they wouldn’t require him to wear a burqa just to talk to them. Remember, it doesn’t matter how nice, smart, thoughtful you are…if you can’t lead. And our own citizens aren’t that much better. Making fun of things like James Stockdale’s thick glasses and hearing problems (the result of POW torture, come on people…shameful!), Chris Christie’s weight, and Janet Reno’s manliness are still perceived as fair game. Believe me, I can always tell when I win an argument. It’s usually when my weight enters the discussion. Unfortunately, even in this day and age it is better to have Mitt Romney’s hair than Ron Paul’s earnestness.
Empirically speaking, Paul comes off as kind of goofy. I’d love if he were my neighbor, but the man will never be President.

1. Being the world policemen encourages the Axis of evil. They dig it. They want us in Iraq and Afghanistan. They want us in South Korea. It gives the dictators in their ****y little countries the political cover to blame every domestic problem on the Americans, and it also gives them a reason to try to act strong.

I agree with you as to the mechanism, but not your conclusion. Arabs have been adversarial to the U.S. since its inception. We certainly weren’t bombing them then. In fact, it was only our bombs that stopped them raiding our ships and enslaving our men. Perhaps that response just became a habit. My position is that it is the media that has emboldened them. They know that there will be a certain anti-American segment of our own population that will come to their defense, no matter the wrong they have done, and been justly punished for.

a. See Sadaam Hussein intentionally fool the international community into thinking he had large stockpiles of WMD. Why would he fake it as if he had WMD? Because Saddam was not worried about the US, he was worried about the Shiites in his own country. The threat of WMD kept his own people in line…so he lied about having it.

This issue is complicated, as we did indeed make use of Saddam as a tool against Iran for a long time. Whether the WMD’s were there or not is still debatable. The fact is they have never been found, so it would appear the threats were unfounded. However, I will say that there is still a price to be paid for empty threats. In this country at least, it is against the law to threaten someone, though it is rarely enforced, unless the threat is credible. I guess when one decides to make empty threats, one forfeits the right to cry foul when someone takes the threats seriously.

b. See Ahmidinejad and when he came to power – 2004. Why? Because we were in Iraq. He played fear of US influence in the region into a winning tactic for getting into power in Iran.

I’m sure a little hostage situation in the 70’s might have had something to do with it too. Yes, the Iraq war brought it out, but the hatred of the U.S. has been with Iraq since the Shah.

c. Why did we not intervene in the “Green Revolution”? Because somebody smartly realized that once the Americans touch something, it turns to**** in the eyes of those people. Its like picking up a baby bird that falls out of its nest. Doesn’t matter if the US has the best intentions. We get blamed. Why should we want to continue allowing ourselves to get blamed when we risk our soldiers for humanitarian reasons (IE Somalia), and end up screwing this up worse than it was before?

I am not a fan of the “win the hearts and minds” strategy being implemented by the military. Especially in an area where we are already hated. I say this in all seriousness. Let them wallow in their own squalor. If they ever want our help, they will ask for it.

d. Look at Hugo Chavez. Why does he always spend 3 hours a night on state TV downing the US? Because he is trying to be Pepsi to our Coke. He is one of the primary anti-US guys left, and there is a market for that. And the more we openly attack him, the more his stupid supporters in the Venezulean slums rally behind him.

I am in favor of either doing something about him, or shutting up. Much like Saddam Hussein, he has made lots of threats. It wouldn’t break my heart if he were to turn up “late” for breakfast one morning. Ironically, we never actually did anything to Chavez in the beginning. Venezuelans were just poor (and angry) because the price of oil was so low. As we know today, the U.S. does not set the price of oil.
Chavez came to power about the same time were obsequiously handing over the Panama Canal to Panama, despite us bearing all of the cost of its construction and maintenance. Once again, in an effort to kiss Latin America’s arse, Carter only invited more open hostility. Chavez learned well how to deal with America.

OK, look at Rudy Guiliani “The American Hero”. What, precisely, did he do in the aftermath of 9/11 that was so heroic? Beats me. He was presiding Mayor of the hardest hit city. Yet by doing what any other mayor in America would do in that situation, he became a hero.

No disagreement here. Giuliani is nothing special. He gets cancer, cheats on his wife, and demogogues just like everyone else. I will give him credit for having the stones to clean up Times Square.

f. Look at George W. Bush. He too, stayed pretty calm and did relatively little following 9/11 for a few months. While he was doing little, his poll numbers went to 90%. That’s a record for a modern president. He got the same bounce that Ahmadinejad would get if we attack Iran.

Bush was only popular because people were scared. The right loved him because they “knew” he would go to war, and the left accepted him because he hadn’t…”yet.” You can see that only one of those positions is sustainable, so I wouldn’t put much stock in a poll number non sequitur. Just think of the poll numbers of the President who has Ahmadinejad assassinated! (just kidding here…or am I?)

g. Look at Pakistan. Do we attack Pakistan? No. Why? They have nukes. So, we have to treat them with kid gloves.

h. Look at North Korea. Do we attack North Korea? No. Why? Cause they have nukes. So, we treat them with kid gloves.

I’ve heard this many times as an example of how we are inconsistent. This is not true. Even Marcus Aurelius knew to fight only the battles you think you can win and talk your way out of the others if you can. But it is not a valid excuse to stop other nations graduating from one category to the other.

i. Look at Libya. Do we attack Libya? Through intermediaries, yes. Why? They don’t have nukes. And we talked the dumb bastards out of getting them. – Put that all together, and what do you have? US hyperinvolvement creates incentives for countries to get Nukes. Its like a get out of jail free card. We are behind these *******s coming to power, and then behind their desire to arm up. Its actually a rational reaction on their part. If the threat of US involvement wasn’t looming over each of these countries, there would not be as large of an incentive to develop nukes.

You make it sound so easy. They’ll just “get some nukes.” I agree with it being rational that they don’t like it when we exert our influence. I wouldn’t either if I were them. But the reality is, we developed the nuke first, and thus the responsibility of the benevolent dictator (in this matter only) falls upon our shoulders. I would place the evil of us keeping them subjugated lower than the evil of them also obtaining nukes on the “we’re screwed now” meter. Just be glad they didn’t get nukes first.

2. It is a principle long adhered to among Republicans that sometimes, the thing that sounds right, that sounds good in a soundbyte, is actually a bad policy.

At the very least, an unpopular policy. Many Conservatives don’t actually believe what they think they believe. If we were to prove Social Security is unconstitutional, they still wouldn’t support repealing it. Especially after being subjected to nice pictures of grandma being rolled off a cliff in her wheelchair.

a. Foreign Policy is the greatest area where this principle applies. In foreign policy, the rough riders are the ones who are beloved. The aggressive, the heroic, the belligerent. Cheat on your wife? Well, just go bomb a Balkan country and we’ll forgive you. Is your popularity waning? Lets settle that old score in Iraq. Want to look tough on communism? Hey, lets send advisors to that Southeast Asian country that the French got beat down in, to help the natives fight off a popular communist revolution. What happens if a boat in a harbor explodes in port in Havana, and the popular wisdom is that it was sabotage? Well, lets blame the Spanish and take all their empire!

b

. I wont delve into whether the war with Spain was wise, or WWI or WW2. But lets look at the modern American wars.

i. What did we solve in Korea? We set a precedent where the President can act unilaterally, involve us in a war with no end, and there we remain, almost 60 years later.

We have elected many tyrants in the history of our country. Many of the same qualities that make someone a good leader are also found in tyrants. It’s hard to filter them out. Strangely enough, they never run on a platform of tyranny.
I would love to believe that somehow they were privy to details average Joe you and I never found out about, but I’m pretty sure it’s more mundane, like money, influence, or to distract from the embarrassment over getting caught receiving a hummer in the Oval Office. I think in the case of the Maine, there was some hostility already brewing, and once the shooting started, nobody wanted to admit the mistake made. Plus, we were right in the middle of the Victorian Era, when war was somewhat romanticized.
We need to get out of Korea. The South Koreans don’t really like us. They know they’re screwed without us, so they let us waste our money on them. Maybe we should threaten the Chinese with letting Japan invade them again. The Japanese seem to know how to handle the Chinese. (that’s just a little humor)

ii. Vietnam. Without hearts and minds, you cannot win. And you don’t win hearts and minds by sending in the Marines. 58,000 American men dead.

Forget the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese. We lost that war on our own shores. The combination of media sabotage, war profiteering, and general descent into dope-smoking hippydom turned the U.S. into a stumbling giant, afraid to commit to any singular course of action.

iii. Kuwait. It could have been the feelgood story of American involvement. We did everything right. We had a huge, international coalition. We were protecting a smaller country against a bully. We had a US interest in the area (oil). We won quickly and decisively. But then we lost. Why? Cause we didn’t kill Hussein, and the problem festered. So the lesson is we should have killed Hussein then.

First mistake: we fought for people who hate us, though it was to safeguard oil reserves and the stability they provide. Second (worst) mistake: We strayed from Marcus Aurelius again. When you fight a war, you make it as short, and final as possible. Wrong or right, Hussein had to die the moment the first shot was fired. Otherwise, you get what resulted: the perception (correct?) that the U.S. is a paper tiger at heart.

c. Also thought I would remind everyone that Saddam was an ally. So was Bin Laden (we created the Mujahadeen, just as Pakistan created the Taliban). So was Stalin. So was Qhadaffi. We have a history, in American foreign policy, of being for it, before we were against it, before we were for it.

We do that a lot. It really has to do with the transitory nature of our government. Every 4 years our compass swings around 180 degrees, and we abandon all of the commitments the previous administration made. Not on paper, of course…but in reality, yes. There are no votes to be gained in maintaining the status quo. A crappy system for those who believe we are their ally.

b. But if this foreign intervention is so foolish, why do we keep doing it?

a. First, we have to distinguish ourself from the Left in all areas. The Left is supposed to be wrong on every single issue. So when a lefty calls for peace, it is the natural reaction to deride it.

The derision itself is certainly for this reason, but I would hope we don’t actually go to war to prove a political point. Perhaps it’s because we’re pigeonholed by our own bravado into following through on it, else admit being wrong. It goes back to good old Marcus Aurelius; never make threats you’re not willing to make good on.

b. Religious reasons. I don’t want to hit too hard on this, but some fundamentalist Christians who still hold sway believe that there is religious justification for our support of Israel. These factions identify with the hardline Israeli interests, not the more moderate Israelis who agree with land for peace and some concessions/diplomacy, and thus think that we must do whatever we can to take the military burden off of Israel as they fight to survive. The other night, I saw Bill OReilly call Dr. Pauls’ comments during the debate stupid. Then he preceded to downplay Paul’s citing a US intelligence expert who claimed to know nothing concrete of Iranian intentions, and then OReilly declared he trusted Mossad (Israeli Intelligence)’s statements about Iran’s capabilities more than our own. My jaw just about hit the floor. Here we have that boor OReilly calling Ron Paul stupid, and in the same sentence, outsourcing American security and interests to Israel’s most militant interests! How dare he! But this man directs others to think a certain way. Anybody reading this must admit that Fox News and the line most of their commentators espouse has a direct and strong influence on all the grannies and grandpas watching.

I often say this to people I am arguing with, and though I don’t find it a complicated concept, they sometimes fail to grasp the subtleties of it. I think you will. I have no concern for the rationale for a person’s position; i.e. religious motivations for certain policies. I would only be concerned if it became the mechanism for instituting those policies. There is a huge difference between a nation of religious people and a theocracy. As for O’Reilly, I rarely watch him anymore. He has become far too enamored of his own voice. I will say though, that I think he did imply that the stupid thing was Paul saying it out loud; i.e., there will be a political price to pay. He may think the content was stupid too, for all I know. I don’t trust anything I hear at face value, so I have a hard time relating to what Grandpa Fred and Grandma Ethel get out of it.

c. The military industrial complex. Anytime someone tries to poopoo talk of this as being a conspiracy theory, remember who coined the phrase. The split in the Republican party between anti-war conservatives and pro-war conservatives occurred in the early 50s. Taft was running and set to win the nomination. He was against most foreign involvement,. He was known as “Mr. Republican”. Fear of Mr. Taft led people to draft Ike to run against Taft. Ike of course won, Taft died a couple years later, and national security/anticommunism have been two planks of the GOP ever since. But before Taft died, he and Ike actually became friends. After Taft had died, in his last speech as President, Ike, the military general, the one hand selected to prevent the GOP from returning to non-interventionism, echoed the old rights’s concerns about the military industrial complex. American spends 3 times as much as any other country on defense. Don’t doubt the complex exists.

No doubt here. Anywhere there is money to be made, you will always have ulterior motives. Eisenhower’s warning was solid advice. What we mustn’t do, however, is allow the hystericals on the other side to spew out “truth” about this unchecked. These are the same kind of rabid, uneducated idiots who put out Loose Change, a supposed expose about how the U.S. government brought down the Twin Towers; a film I can personally debunk in about 15 minutes. I’m sure you’ve had more than one experience with some dumb, smelly college hippie who knew everything about the evil industrial military complex, dude.

3. What could be?

a. Every time there is a budget battle in Washington, the democrats use national security as a pawn to scare republicans into not cutting enough, either taxes or spending. What if the GOP were to suddenly turn non-interventionist? It would give the GOP a huge advantage in budget negotiations, as we can now find that we can cut a huge amount of Pentagon spending, find common ground with bewildered democrats, and push through a plan that has a fighting chance of at least reducing the current debt madness we are embroiled in. Which leads me to Dr. Pauls last point, normally.

You know I would not condescend to you lightly. You possess excellent inductive and deductive reasoning (at least one person told the review board that LOL), yet this matter is one purely of experience. I am reminded of the fable of the scorpion and the frog (very loosely told):
A scorpion stands at a river unable to cross. He spies a frog, whom he asks to carry him across the river. The frog is afraid, because he thinks the scorpion might sting him. The scorpion says “that’s crazy…if I sting you, we’d both drown.” So the frog agrees. Halfway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog, as he starts to die, asks “why did you do that?” The scorpion, beginning to sink, shrugs and says “I couldn’t help it. It’s in my nature.”
You have not been stung enough times by the “scorpion” of compromise. Compromise is touted as a sort of Holy Grail these days; an end unto itself. The problem is, one side can simply exaggerate what they want, so that when compromise is reached, they got everything they wanted in the first place. (See my Ron Paul “poker” scenario below.)
The Democrats are, and have always been better negotiators for their causes. It’s not because they are smarter. It’s built into the system. Ostensibly, the perfect Republican position would be based 100% upon the Constitution. One can’t get more constitutional than 100%. Therefore, all a Republican can do is to undo previous losses. A Democrat can take the legal ball and roll with it, as far as he can take it. And due to our dependence on precedent (again, see below), it gets harder and harder for the Republican to undo those losses.
If the Republicans decide to cut military spending, that “common ground” you dream of will evaporate faster than a fart in a hurricane.

b. We are effectively broke. Right now we have the option of an orderly withdrawal of US forces. Soon, that will no longer be an option. It is akin to both the fall back of the British and Roman empires. They intervened abroad until they were dead in the center. The British were lucky to be allies with the Americans in WWII. The Romans weren’t so lucky, and were sacked. We are becoming the sick old superpower, that everyone knows is going to fall. But it is reversible,. The American century was not so because of our bombs, subs, ships or soldiers. All the other countries have had the same. It was our century because our economy became so explosive, so vital, that we became the indispensable world power. That power came from American ingenuity at home, innovation, hard work, resources, law, freedom, all the core components of Dr. Paul’s domestic policy. Dr. Paul’s foreign policy works primarily because his domestic policy is so strong. With it, we will see a quick depression – and then a liquidation of the malinvestment of the last decade. After 2, maybe 3 years of a contracting economy, housing prices will be at equilibrium, debt will be manageable, and the economy will explode again. Why? Because of the American people. Don’t ever trust a politician who says they will deliver jobs. That is the province of the American people, applying their skills, knowledge, innovation and desire to create production, which is the engine of wealth. It is only up to the government to create the environment that jobs are created in, with order, and law and justice and free enterprise.

We are indeed broke. But I would disagree with your cause and effect of the 20th century. Ironically, our greatest periods of economic expansion have come after our most vulgar displays of power (Pantera…ROCK ON!). WW1 begat the roaring 20’s, and WW2 begat the 50’s expansion. It’s as if we all do better when the realities of life and death become tangible, and we are swelled with national (some would say jingoistic) pride, and are more focused on just working hard and enjoying life. Or maybe people just get conditioned to the hustle and bustle of military production pace, and it hangs over a while.
I am all for cutting government spending (I would wager I’m more hardline in that department than even you), but we will have a fight on our hands. The crux of the problem is that we can’t seem to accept why we are a dying old superpower. There are far too many idle hands and minds. People expect a life of luxury, with no sweat input. I laughed out loud the other day when I read the “Occupy Wall Street” list of suggested salaries for occupations. It is ironic that they think they are fighting to save the country, when they are in fact its death knell.

One last thing. The Constitution vests the full power to declare war in the US Congress. Paul is no longer running for Congress. He is running for President. He is the only candidate running for President in the last 14 years who actually believes that it is the role of congress, and not the President, to declare war. As such a strict constitutionalist, should Congress declare war, even if Paul disagrees, I believe that he will do his duty as commander-in-chief. It is important to note that the primary power that people have been downing Paul for, is, according to Paul, not one of the powers he wants.

I’m with you on this. The military has become the personal and political plaything of the President (much as the courts have taken over legislation). However, and I am only speaking pragmatically, given the current state of affairs in Congress, I am not sure it wouldn’t be worse. This bunch of clowns can’t even pass a budget. I wonder if the downside of a President acting unilaterally isn’t at least infinitesimally better than a Congress who might refuse to declare a necessary war over some domestic oil pipeline squabble. That’s probably just my moral fatigue showing though. I’ve been arguing politics for over 30 years, and maybe I’m hitting a lull.
As for Ron Paul, I am not so concerned with his ability to fight a war. Even FDR, the worst president in history (give Obama time, folks) was effective at commanding the troops. I am concerned with his perceived weakness being an invitation to attack. The threat of military force is and always will be a part of diplomacy. Ron Paul is not a very good poker player. It’s one thing entirely to never bluff. But to wear like a badge of courage that you’ll never bluff is suicide.

You asked me about my thoughts on originalism in interpretation and adherence to judicial precedent. I think that trying to determine the original meaning of the Constitution is what the first purpose of the Supreme Court should be. If the original meaning of the text is clear, its not the duty of the Court to try and get around it. The problem with this is the necessary and proper clause, which authorizes Congress to do what is necessary to carry out its enumerated powers. It effectively expands power, as it should –without the clause, Congress would be pretty impotent even to carry out its enumerated powers. Then you have judicial interpretations of the meaning of the commerce clause, which in my opinion after NRLB steel and especially Wikard v. Filburn went off the reservation. The Court tried to reign in the expansion of the clause in the mid 90s, but it really had little practical change IMO. The upcoming Obamacare case will be huge, but I’m afraid it will be upheld unless they want to turn their back on Wickard.

Respect for judicial precedent is one of those things that makes good sense, but only to a point. People need to know what the law is, and have a rational basis to believe it will probably remain the same. But when there are so many bad precedents set, like I would argue Roe and Wickard and Kelo, those do need to be overruled. Oftentimes the Court uses respect for precedent as an excuse for whatever they may find. The shocking, perhaps not too shocking thing I think people find when they study constitutional law is the variation in the Courts opinions, the weird angles, the places where even people who are supposed to be textualists stop reading the plain text (Scalia, from time to time can be accused of not following the text despite his reputation). Its an incredibly hard job to apply a 200 year old document, and the question is, when arguments can be made for either interpretation, which one do you choose? The tiebreaker is often personal political ideas, hidden by clever justifications, or sometimes, adherence to precedent.

Precedent, by its very nature relies on interpretation of the Constitution, rather than adherence to. The Constitution was never meant to be interpreted. It was mean to be taken as is, or amended. It still amazes me; the wisdom of the Framers to have so little ego invested as to include a means to undo what they did.
Precedent is a very dangerous concept. Can one person change the country? Questionable. Can five? Absolutely, and they do it all the time in the SCOTUS. What makes precedent so repugnant to me is that it really represents a “guild” mentality on the part of the legal profession. Lawyers (and I’m sure you can back this up for me, Billy) when arguing a point, too often fall back on “well so-and so Court ruled a certain way and set precedent, so that’s the way it is,” rather than asking if that decision was correct to begin with. Precedent means “if we screwed up, we have to keep screwing up, rather than dishonor a past justice by overturning his ruling.” Whatever happens, don’t rock the boat.
My “favorite” example of this is Everson v. Department of Education, 1947. Regardless of how anyone feels about public displays of religion, I should hope that anyone would be offended over what started it. A penny ante case over parents being reimbursed for bus fares for their children to get to school, whether it be public or parochial. Seriously?!?! For that minor dispute, we somehow arrive at the complete banishment of all things religious from the public square? Even Black knew the case was a loser. So the court actually found in favor of the plaintiff, and the Catholics continued to be reimbursed by the state. This was a masterful stroke, as he gave the Catholics what they wanted, keeping them happy, while setting them up for a crushing defeat. He snuck “separation of church and state” into the argument. It was legislation by sleight of hand. It’s as if I prosecuted you for Crime A, then decided what you did wasn’t actually Crime A, but merely Action B, and while you celebrate your acquittal, quietly convince everyone Action B is actually Crime B.
It’s clear that Black’s majority opinion was nothing more than a vehicle for him to push his anti-Catholic agenda. Black exploited precedence as a means to do what Congress could and rightfully would not. (By the way, I don’t fail to notice the sweet irony of Black being a much vaunted U of A alma mater.)
Now Everson is accepted as unassailable. They’ve already based too much other bad law upon it. There is no way back to the Constitution without overthrow of the government.

He is actually in this race not to win, but to lay the groundwork for a new understanding of political conservatism. In that respect, he is similar to Barry Goldwater.

So you do agree with my assessment that Paul is acting as a foil. He does have an effect, even if he doesn’t win. Republicans are no different from Democrats in that unchecked, they will become corrupt. When they won big in 1994, I think most of them really believed in what they were doing. But by 1998, it was business as usual again in Congress. We had traded one group of crooks for another. Ron Paul, and to a lesser extent others like him, help keep the Republicans from going off the other edge.