Is Ron Paul correct on Iran?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Interesting. so can i conclude that you, like me don't always agree with American Imperialism?

Sometimes it has been difficult reconcile the diplomatic interests of the U.S. with its professed moral agenda: it’s called “realpolitik”.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Regardless of how you interpreted those posts, i never said i was completely against American Imperialist actions. Only that in the case of invading Iraq it was wrong and that it was a disaster. At times such action has been correct and in others it has been wrong, as in Iraq. And you misconstrued the purpose of the cartoon i posted from that Wiki article. It was merely to illustrate that American Imperialism has been a long standing controversial subject. Yet you inferred i did not approve of Imperialist actions regarding the Philippines, Cuba, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Never said that nor implied it by posting the cartoon.

It was your statement: “I agree with Ron Paul, let's look further on the results of ‘American Imperialism’, name me one example where this has actually worked? nowhere i know of . . .” that riled. No harm, no foul. Subsequently, we have provided several examples where American Imperialism has had a positive impact on subjugated states.

“Pacifying” the Philippines was, perhaps, the most naked incident of U.S. imperialism. But once the shooting was over in 1902, the U.S. ruled with benign benevolence compared to other, European and Asian, imperial powers in the early 20th century. Ultimately, the Philippines garnered many of the benefits related to adopting the democratic institutions of the West, and, for the most part, the U.S. is highly regarded among most Filipinos.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I cited Neville Chamberlain in the first place. Ron Paul is not Neville Chamberlain. Just because he thinks that Iran as a sovereign nation has the right to develop nuclear arms doesn't mean he is "appeasing" Iran or that he's not capable of taking action, including the use of military force if he felt the situation required it. I think he'd certainly be a stronger leader than Obama.

What’s good for Iran is not necessarily good for the U.S. And just because the U.S. attempts to interdict Iran’s effort to develop nuclear weapons, doesn’t make it a bad policy for the U.S. to continue to do so. It’s called realpolitik. No U.S. interest is served by allowing a nuclear capable Iran. U.S. Presidents are elected to pursue the self-interests of American citizens . . . not to defer to the interests of Iranian politicians.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Germany and Japan reflect the efficacy of post war "nation building".
.

To stupid SOB's like you!

What % of Germany and Japan GDP goes to their Defense? I will give you a hint, very fuc'n little.

Also given a chance to start over...do you see how well they did containing cost on healthcare vs how well we have done?

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Anyone who thinks soldiers, sailors and marines are "policemen" are ignorant and have no appreciation of what soldiers, sailors and marines are trained to do.

Write all the papers you want...this ain't college, this is the real world and in the real world wars get fought over resources and empires decline when they have to spend more money policing their resources than they derive from those resources. Now that is not to say that some segments of society do not benifit more from that policing of the world. Just look at the oil companies and Defense companies. It is a huge transfer opf wealth so that ignorant assholes like you can write papers and feel good about yourself.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

U.S. Presidents are elected to pursue the self-interests of American citizens . . . not to defer to the interests of Iranian politicians.

I thought you knew what ''realpolitik'' meant? U S Presidents are elected to pursue the interest of a privileged few in this country and to appease the masses.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

in the real world wars get fought over resources and empires decline when they have to spend more money policing their resources than they derive from those resources.

In the real world, empires capitulate and become the subjugated when they cease to spend money in the defense of their own interests.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

... this is the real world and in the real world wars get fought over resources and empires decline when they have to spend more money policing their resources than they derive from those resources....

It is unnecessary to fight "real world wars" if the United States has a strong, willing military that is genuinely and enthusiastically supported by its CITIZENS of the aggressive application of those military resources when other countries do not "capitulate" and "play nice" on the world stage.

It has only been when other countries believed (or perceived) that the U.S. citizens had no stomach for body bags coming home and for our fast food, gravy train to be interrupted or inconvenienced.

I was hopeful that "we" were beyond that point after S.E. Asia, but it is painfully apparent that there is a loud segment of our society who persist in advocating that it is better to pass out "Lone Star" cards than improve and refine our military to deter aggressive actions against this country.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

In the real world, empires capitulate and become the subjugated when they cease to spend money in the defense of their own interests.

God what a circle jerk...they cease to spend money on Defense when that resources policing cost more than the benifits of the resources!

WTF....I can only pray our youth has not read any of the ten papers you have written!

Don't you Empire fuckers understand history? There is no such thing as a benevolent Empire. Or better stated a benevolent Empire is not around forever. It is a simplke math problem. If you spend more that you get in return, sooner or later you will go broke. That is WTF that is happening to us.

I see you dodged the examples you provided. Japan and Germany.


They spend very little on Defense. How about Japan and Germany providing the policing of the world and let us spend our money on say infrastructure and the health of our citizens.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Don't you Empire fuckers understand history? There is no such thing as a benevolent Empire. Or better stated a benevolent Empire is not around forever. It is a simplke math problem. If you spend more that you get in return, sooner or later you will go broke.

You are either ignorant and cannot read, or you are purposefully misquoting.

Furthermore, what part of the GDP isn't dependent on the dominant military capabilities of the U.S.?

Originally Posted by WTF

I see you dodged the examples you provided. Japan and Germany.

They spend very little on Defense. How about Japan and Germany providing the policing of the world and let us spend our money on say infrastructure and the health of our citizens.

So this wasn't a rhetorical question. The reason Germany and Japan spend less on military development was because of the post-war "nation building" and conditions imposed by the victors - including the U.S. - on the vanquished, you stupid fuck. Ask East Berliners who they think was more benevolent: the U.S. or the U.S.S.R.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So this wasn't a rhetorical question. The reason Germany and Japan spend less on military development was because of the post-war "nation building" and conditions imposed by the victors - including the U.S. - on the vanquished, you stupid fuck. Ask East Berliners who they think was more benevolent: the U.S. or the U.S.S.R.

Yea and that gave them a leg up on us.

God Damn you are ignorant.

We police the world for them.

Do you understand that is one less tax their citizens have to pay.

They can take that money and say subsidize their auto companies with health care, something our car companies did not have the luxury of. So their car companies did not have to cut corners to pay for their auto workers healthcare.

We set up a healthcare system that was efficient and fair in both Germany and Japan and then we policed the world for them for free.

Once again when you start paying more into Empire building/Resource gathering than the benefit derive you start going broke.

WTF do you think is happening to this country? We are going broke last I heard. Why? Because we are spending to damn much policing the world while people like Japan and Germany benefit from our benevolence. God Damn are we back to this same circle jerk, jerk?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

We set up a healthcare system that was efficient and fair in both Germany and Japan and then we policed the world for them for free.

Once again when you start paying more into Empire building/Resource gathering than the benefit derive you start going broke.

WTF do you think is happening to this country? We are going broke last I heard. Why? Because we are spending to damn much policing the world while people like Japan and Germany benefit from our benevolence. God Damn are we back to this same circle jerk, jerk?

Fascinating how warped your rationale is! The post WWII nation building stabilized Europe for the first time in eighty years. Germany and Japan have not been aggressor nations since 1945. No Americans have died on European battlefields since 1945. Has the peace in Europe been more or less costly for the U.S.?

Furthermore, West Germany and Japan were allies throughout the Cold War, and, as such, help bring about the collapse of the U.S.S.R., so their contribution is not to be discounted.

And you avoided answering this question: "what part of the GDP isn't dependent on the dominant military capabilities of the U.S.?"

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Fascinating how warped your rationale is! The post WWII nation building stabilized Europe for the first time in eighty years. Germany and Japan have not been aggressor nations since 1945. No Americans have died on European battlefields since 1945. Has the peace in Europe been more or less costly for the U.S.?

Furthermore, West Germany and Japan were allies throughout the Cold War, and, as such, help bring about the collapse of the U.S.S.R., so their contribution is not to be discounted.

The Soviets are done? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, you might wanna tell Putin that.

You are missing the bigger picture....we are going broke, just like all Empires. Who gives a fuc about what may or may not have happened.

Right now we can not afford to support the rest of the world, haven't you noticed we are having a problem paying our bills.

Should we raise taxes? Should we quit helping the elderly and poor? Or shoulds we cut defense spending and nation building in other countries and spend that money in our own nation?

That is the question at the moment. Sorry if you were writing some college paper for brainwashed lil Reaganites!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

The Soviets are done? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, you might wanna tell Putin that.

You might want to look a "current" atlas - there is no U.S.S.R!

And you avoided answering this question AGAIN: "what part of the GDP isn't dependent on the dominant military capabilities of the U.S.?"

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You might want to look a "current" atlas - there is no U.S.S.R!

.?"

I guess there is no Putin either...

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And you avoided answering this question AGAIN: "what part of the GDP isn't dependent on the dominant military capabilities of the U.S.?"

I said we could shift spending on nation building (building things in other nations ) and start spending that saving here in this nation. That would shift welfare from a few Defense contractors to putting folks to work in this country. So that GDP shift would be a multiplier in this country and not others.

Hard concept for you neo-cons to grasp.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

I guess there is no Putin either..

.

There is still no U.S.S.R. It's мертвый!

Originally Posted by WTF

I said we could shift spending on nation building (building things in other nations ) and start spending that saving here in this nation. That would shift welfare from a few Defense contractors to putting folks to work in this country. So that GDP shift would be a multiplier in this country and not others.

Hard concept for you neo-cons to grasp.

That's not an answer to the question.

[CuteOldGuy]

Whoa! I need some medical attention, because I am agreeing more and more with WTF. The Soviet Union is getting the band back together. Putin is KGB, and likely Stalin without a shirt.

However, as much as I distrust Republicans (and Democrats) I think Ron Paul would quickly and decisively act if genuine American interests were being threatened. The wars we are fighting now are not against terrorism, they are to protect oil interests for the big oil companies. They are not worth American blood and treasure. What would happen if Middle East oil were cut off? Prices would skyrocket, so we would either have to develop our own oil resources, or find a 21st century fuel to run a 21st century society. The oil companies have a vested interest in keeping us dependent on archaic fuel.

We would be much more secure, and need a much smaller defense budget, if we developed a modern fuel system that didn't depend on oil.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Texaspride74

No, I mean Ron Paul the 12 term Texas Congressmen who has been the staunchest defender of the Constitution in Congress since Thomas Jefferson.

... Fox News or any of the MSM for that matter. ... who will push the propaganda of the Military Industrial Complex.

I am not pushing any propoganda. Just historical facts. And I don't need Ron Paul to "defend" the "Constitution in Congress" or any where else. Your weak insults and name calling reflects your own intellectual shortcomings and deficiencies ... as for propoganda ... the same could be said of you "spewing" the propoganda of the "anti-military" crowd that have joined the "anti-wall street" crowds that are trashing the streets of New York as we post and leaving their mess for the tax payers they hate to clean up. BTW, do those folks have jobs, other than being paid to carry signs and make a nuisance of themselves?

Go look at the budget sometime ... and see where the "fat" is. Rather than advocating a smaller military presence, you ought to be advocating a smaller welfare crowd..... and get some of the fat assess off the government tit.