Ron Paul, leading us into the 1930s.

Post Reply
User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Ron Paul, leading us into the 1930s.

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:36 pm

Isolationism redux via Ron Paul

By Richard Cohen, Published: January 2

The blogger Andrew Sullivan, typing faster than he could think, endorsed Ron Paul for the Republican presidential nomination. (He took it back, but we’ll get to that later.) Sullivan is British-born, Oxford-taught and, like so many from that sceptered isle, gifted in print and speech. Still, he somehow did not realize that if someone like Paul had been president in the 1940s, his homeland might have succumbed to Nazi Germany while America, maddeningly isolationist, sat out the war. No doubt, curriculum changes would have been made at Oxford.

Paul opposes just about all international treaties and organizations. He would have the United States pull out of the United Nations and NATO. He would do away with foreign aid, abolish the CIA and essentially turn his back on the rest of the world. This is pretty much what used to be called isolationism, and it allowed Hitler to presume, quite correctly as it turned out, that America would not interfere with his plans to conquer Europe, Britain included. It took Germany’s declaration of war on the United States, not the other way round, to get Uncle Sam involved.

The isolationism of the 1930s and early ’40s has come roaring back — in the person of Paul, I am tempted to write, but that is not exactly the case. The old isolationism was deeply conservative, both socially and economically, and its leaders — Sen. William Borah, R-Idaho, for instance — would never have advocated the decriminalization of recreational drugs. Paul does because he is a libertarian. It is this ideology coupled with his staunch antiwar pose that attracts so many young people and, when you take another look, some not so young people as well. Sullivan is/was one of them, but others on both the left and the right have praised Paul on this score, as if his antiwar position can be extracted from his general nuttiness to make a rational candidate. No such luck.

Now some of these people — notably Sullivan — have backed off. Paul’s old newsletters have (once again) surfaced, and their smarmy racism is downright repellent. Paul said he did not write the stuff, and maybe that’s the case. But there’s more than one noxious newsletter, and his name is on them all. Either he never read his stuff, or he did and didn’t wince, or he had people working for him who thought a little racism would please the boss. None of those explanations flatter him.

Continues.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
redunderthebed
Commie Bastard
Posts: 6556
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:13 pm
About me: "Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate and wine in each hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
Location: Port Lincoln Australia
Contact:

Re: Ron Paul, leading us into the 1930s.

Post by redunderthebed » Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:28 am

United states were isolationist until they realised their was a buck to be made in being interventionist in "europe's quarrels".
Trolldor wrote:Ahh cardinal Pell. He's like a monkey after a lobotomy and three lines of cocaine.
The Pope was today knocked down at the start of Christmas mass by a woman who hopped over the barriers. The woman was said to be, "Mentally unstable."

Which is probably why she went unnoticed among a crowd of Christians.
Cormac wrote: One thing of which I am certain. The world is a better place with you in it. Stick around please. The universe will eventually get around to offing all of us. No need to help it in its efforts...

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Ron Paul, leading us into the 1930s.

Post by Ian » Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:35 am

redunderthebed wrote:United states were isolationist until they realised their was a buck to be made in being interventionist in "europe's quarrels".
"A buck to be made" can also be called "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". It costs much less in blood and treasure to be interventionist than isolationist. The US done learned that the hard way in WWII.

Ron Paul thinks otherwise, but fortunately his lunacy will never find its way into the White House.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Ron Paul, leading us into the 1930s.

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:44 am

redunderthebed wrote:United states were isolationist until they realised their was a buck to be made in being interventionist in "europe's quarrels".
Really? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=184152
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
redunderthebed
Commie Bastard
Posts: 6556
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:13 pm
About me: "Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate and wine in each hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
Location: Port Lincoln Australia
Contact:

Re: Ron Paul, leading us into the 1930s.

Post by redunderthebed » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:00 am

Gawdzilla wrote:
redunderthebed wrote:United states were isolationist until they realised their was a buck to be made in being interventionist in "europe's quarrels".
Really? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=184152

Interesting reading........just curious if they weren't isolationist why didn't they get involved until 1941 when they were attacked?.

I should of qualified my statement in saying that the government of the day was isolationist not necessarily the majority/large minority of americans i mean it wouldn't be the first time in history that they ignored the will of the people.
Trolldor wrote:Ahh cardinal Pell. He's like a monkey after a lobotomy and three lines of cocaine.
The Pope was today knocked down at the start of Christmas mass by a woman who hopped over the barriers. The woman was said to be, "Mentally unstable."

Which is probably why she went unnoticed among a crowd of Christians.
Cormac wrote: One thing of which I am certain. The world is a better place with you in it. Stick around please. The universe will eventually get around to offing all of us. No need to help it in its efforts...

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Ron Paul, leading us into the 1930s.

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:05 am

redunderthebed wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:
redunderthebed wrote:United states were isolationist until they realised their was a buck to be made in being interventionist in "europe's quarrels".
Really? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=184152

Interesting reading........just curious if they weren't isolationist why didn't they get involved until 1941 when they were attacked?.
You really need to look at the US activities during this period.
I should of qualified my statement in saying that the government of the day was isolationist not necessarily the majority/large minority of americans i mean it wouldn't be the first time in history that they ignored the will of the people.
The government of the day was lead by FDR, a staunch interventionist. He pushed through as much rearmament, preparedness and "aid to allies" as he could. The Republicans fought every step tooth and nail, of course, not because it was bad for the country but because FDR wanted it
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74293
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Ron Paul, leading us into the 1930s.

Post by JimC » Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:33 am

It seems like he goes to rather absurd extremes, but there is a case to be made for some reduction in the US tendency to intervene almost compulsively in international affairs. Sometimes, a watching brief is the better option...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Ron Paul, leading us into the 1930s.

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:23 pm

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74293
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Ron Paul, leading us into the 1930s.

Post by JimC » Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:40 pm

Gawdzilla wrote:Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
In that case, save yourselves some money and lives by moving a tad in the "don't" direction...

Particularly in terms of ground troops, or interventions in messy situations, in support of very dodgy governments...

However, there will always be some critical areas that need an armed response, from the US (hopefully as part of a coalition). Iran attempting to close the Straits of Hormuz would be one clear example...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Ron Paul, leading us into the 1930s.

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:44 pm

JimC wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
In that case, save yourselves some money and lives by moving a tad in the "don't" direction...
Frankly, there are times when I'd be quite happy to let the rest of the world go to hell in a hand basket.
Particularly in terms of ground troops, or interventions in messy situations, in support of very dodgy governments...
Like Thatcher, or Blair?
However, there will always be some critical areas that need an armed response, from the US (hopefully as part of a coalition). Iran attempting to close the Straits of Hormuz would be one clear example...
Sorry, we're no longer in that business. Good luck finding your oil.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74293
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Ron Paul, leading us into the 1930s.

Post by JimC » Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:41 pm

Perhaps you misunderstand me, 'Zilla...

There seems to be 2 extremes on this issue, at least as discussed by posters here.

1. The US should completely withdraw from any form of global military intervention, either from the Ron Paul perspective, or from the perspective that sees the US as an evil empire...

2. Virtually all of the post-war US military interventions have been both totally morally justified, and good for the world as a whole, and the US should continue to act as a world policeman, both in defence of its own national interests, but also to support its own ideological position, deposing governments who it regards as oppressive as it sees fit.

I am trying to put a more nuanced position, one that may move somewhat away from position 2, but goes nowhere near position 1. The US will continue to be a major player in the world, but it can make reductions in some areas of overseas military expenditure (helping your economy), and also be a little less gung-ho in some areas. Even CES was somewhat critical of the Libyan thing, for example... However, in the clear areas of defence against attacks of the national interest (e.g. freedom of shipping in the Persian Gulf), the US will no doubt remain capable of dealing with such threats...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 31 guests