Saturday, May 17, 2008

We were not ready
A poem about Ron Paul

No tax-funded aid to Myanmar
Funded by looting
‘Pa, what does “confiscate” mean?’
— James Stewart in Shenandoah
The purpose of government is supposed to be to protect the lives, liberties, and properties of the people who form it.

Even worse is the use of the military to provide foreign-aid services. The purpose of the military is to defend the country from attack or invasion, not to deliver food and spread good will and cheer.

In 1887 the Texas farmers ended up getting ten times as much in private assistance as they would have received from Uncle Sam.

There is no doubt in my mind that Americans will give liberally to alleviate the suffering of the people of Myanmar. Many have done so already through donations to various relief agencies. But whether Americans give or don’t give, it is still the case that it should be the decision of each individual American.
Of course Lew Rockwell gets it:
... constitutionally, the internal affairs of Myranmar are none of the congress’s business, while American goings-on are. BTW, notice how almost everyone seems to think the US state — that humanitarianism with WMD — is some sort of charitable enterprise, rather than an imperial regime scheming for global and domestic power. All hail Ron Paul for being the one member of congress to understand this, and to have the courage to do the right thing on these seemingly harmless — to the LA Times, anyway — resolutions of potential armed meddling.
The trouble with Obama as Daniel Larison points out repeatedly is he doesn’t repudiate the ‘humanitarianism with WMD’ of the left.

Like Pope Benedict an octogenarian from a Catholic country who has a clue
He has written two recent op-eds for the Washington Post that turned heads: one said that we must withdraw from Iraq promptly... another argued that “five years of brainwashing” about a war on terror has turned America into a paranoid society and, in the world’s eyes, made us part of a new “axis of evil.”

... a punching bag for Jewish supporters of Hillary Clinton.
Another reason why Obama wouldn’t win in November (unless for example with Bob Barr we could deflect enough votes from McCain to sink him — nearly repeating Bill Clinton’s 1992 win). She’s got a lock on that vote (nuclear umbrella indeed) as well as the much bigger mainstream RC and working-class white ones.

(Or from their own perspective the Operation Chaos neocon voters got it wrong?)

I honestly don’t think that the people who speak the loudest necessarily represent the largest number of people in the Jewish community.

My view of the Middle East is that it is in the interest of the U.S. to have a resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and the only resolution that is likely to be enduring and acceptable is one that both Israelis and Palestinians can accept, and that, in turn, means a two-state solution.

“The anxiety on the part of the Jewish Right is that Obama is the Manchurian candidate,” says Joshua Landis, a professor at Oklahoma University, “that he has secret sympathy with Muslims, and the whole war of terror which relies on demonizing Islam isn’t going to float. They hear him undoing everything that’s been done under Bush, the idea that Israel’s war with the Palestinians is America’s war with terrorism. They’ve worked hard to cut out any daylight on these issues. And here is Obama trying to put the daylight back in there.”
The interviewer makes an interesting claim:
“George Bush is more progressive than Obama on the issue of Israeli settlements,” I said. “He says mildly they should go; Obama won’t even say that.”
Like 4GW expert William Lind the old Cold Warrior understands this:
In my judgment, the United States and the world confront a fundamental historical discontinuity. The world of the Cold War or earlier, the world of the struggle against the totalitarianism of the Nazi/Stalinist variety, is finished. We live in a complicated, much more dynamic, much more politically awakened world, in which the population of the world ... is politically active, stirring, restless, increasingly anti-Western, increasingly anti-American. And to manage that world well one has to understand ... how the global context has changed. Hillary Clinton would be a perfectly competent president, but her view of the world, in my judgment, is quite conventional and traditional. That criticism is even more applicable to John McCain...

I have been impressed talking with Barack Obama, and also from reading what he has been saying, that he understands that this great historical discontinuity has taken place and that America has to redefine its place in the world. In fact, America has to redefine itself.
Obama ought to be able to bank on that kind of endorsement but I remain with Larison among the sceptics. O only symbolises ‘change’. He’s just another lefty interventionist whom many people happen to like personally.

Paul gets it because unlike the others including Brzezinski he’s not about managing the world but at most managing the United States!

The appeaser-in-chief
BTW most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis; not that he ought to but I don’t see this chickenhawk threatening that country
... grovelling and begging the country’s dictator to produce more oil. The word on the street is that Dub-Yuh will never work up the courage to pay a similar visit to the Washington, D.C. lobbying offices of the Sierra Club to ask it to stop its opposition to oil drilling in the outercontinental shelf and Alaska. That would be expecting way too much testosterone, even for a swashbuckling “Texan”.

“Bring ’em on,” he said to the “terrists”. “Please don’t criticize me; waaaaaaaaah,” he says to the environmentalists.
Of course I’m all for good stewardship of creation but yes.

No comments:

Post a comment

Leave comment