Says Wars for Humanitarian goals is what America is all aboutFrom Eric Dondero:
2012 libertarian Republican Presidential candidate Gary Johnson is calling for significant cuts to the Defense Budget. Though, unlike Ron Paul who he's increasingly being compared too, he takes great exception to strict non-interventionist foreign policy.
From The Weekly Standard Dec. 6:
Johnson support[s] big defense cuts... Johnson suggests the defense budget might need to be slashed... "I don’t want to be irresponsible regarding this. I just have this sense that we’re just spending way too much."John McCormack of The Standard adds:The extent of his non-interventionism isn’t quite clear...
Johnson is open, in principle, to waging humanitarian wars. “If there’s a clear genocide somewhere, don’t we really want to positively impact that kind of a situation?” he says. “Isn’t that what we’re all about? Isn’t that what we’ve always been about? But just this notion of nation building—I think the current policy is making us more enemies than more friends.”
In one notable break from Ron Paul’s foreign policy, Johnson offers rhetorical support for Israel. “I think that we really do have a vested interest in Israel and that we shouldn’t walk away from that interest,” he says. Johnson also puts distance between himself and the 9/11 Truthers, who found a friendly home in the Ron Paul campaign. “Based on what I know,” Johnson says, “no, I don’t think the 9/11 report should be reopened, based on my knowledge.”
his inclination to spurn the fringe elements that were attracted to the 2008 Paul campaign, could help him emerge as a more appealing candidate than Paul.GaryJohnson2012.com
42 comments:
You can’t bring about a humanitarian result if the political objectives you’re pursuing don’t make any sense.
Internal civil wars or strife have to be approached with great caution because the reason such violence is happening is due to the fact that a consolidated nation-state does not exist. It is not the role of our military to create nation-states. The only way United States forces could have impact is to support one of the groups that is warring with the others, and in some cases that could hurt the group we are for.
There is a clear difference between the funding of the Nicaraguan Contras and Gulf War I on the one hand, and our current policy in Iraq and Afghanistan on the other.
Funding the Nicaraguan Contras made some sense. You had a politically consolidated group of people loyal to a leadership and each other who shared the same values and wanted to fight.
Does anybody think you could have taken a Nicaraguan from the north, one from the south, one from the east and one from the west, some pro-Sandinista, some anti-Sandinista, some communist, some sympathetic to the United States, add some rebels from the hills, throw them all into a warehouse, give them the same training and think your going to get the same results as were achieved in training the Contras?
It’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard.
Yet this is precisely what has been attempted in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Caution gets people killed.
It was caution that stopped UN and US forces from going into Rwanda to stop the mass slaughter of 800,000 people in 1994.
It was caution that stopped the US from intervening in Cambodia to stop the horrific killings of nearly 2 million Cambodians at the hands of the Khmer Rouge.
It was caution that prevented us from going in and getting rid of the Hitler of our time Saddam Hussein in the 1990s when he was gassing the Kurds and murdering everyone in Iraq who he considered to be a political opponent.
I say Fuck Caution. Some tyrant somewhere's is slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people, we send in the Marines.
You are not a libertarian. Oozing through your comments is the doctrine of Woodrow Wilson -- a liberal.
If you want to make these points, you are free to do so, but you should at least practice some truth in advertising.
Caution is not the same thing as inaction, or paralysis, or appeasement, which is what you find a lot of in the democratic party.
You have taken the way caution was used in my comment, and perverted its definition in your comment.
What you advocate is putting our military into a place without a viable plan. That's called recklessness.
And no libertarian worth his salt supports it.
"Mr. Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!"
- - - President Andrew Jackson
Resulting in the Trail of Tears
Let's get real . . . no nation on earth gives a flying crap about stopping genocide. PERIOD. In fact most nations are more than willing to help kill off a minority group if it makes them money.
Jews, Armenians, Cherokees, Cambodians, Gypsies or the Tutsis. No one cares. Even FDR was more than happy to send the Jews trying to escape Germany right back to Hitler's ovens.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Gary:
With respect, I think the notion that people do not care about genocide is utterly false.
There are limited options for dealing with places where you do not have consolidated societies.
If sending in the military does anything at all it makes things worse or it delays the consolidation from taking place and lengthens the time frame for disorder and violence -- although that time frame can be pretty lengthy anyway.
Consolidation has been settled by violence everywhere on the planet, and it can go on for centuries. The Britts and the Scotts had an unstable border for 800 years.
Claiming that Conservatives do not care about others is the same argument liberals spat at Conservatives when Conservatives tried to explain why Lyndon Johnson's great society programs would not work.
Good intentions. Bad results.
***** "Claiming that Conservatives do not care . . . " *****
SteveJ, this has NOTHING to do with the endless and silly liberal/conservative debate.
HUMAN BEINGS as a group could care less about __________ (fill in the blank) minority group being killed. A human will read a report about killings in some foreign land then say "tut, tut. how horrible" and move right on to the sports page.
It is what it is.
Gary:
It seems to me that someone like Eric Dondero proves you wrong. As does the rest of our military and numerous aid workers around the planet.
As one of his more ornery admirers, it's pretty clear to me he cares about the oppression of others.
I cannot agree with your point on the "silly liberal/Conservative debate."
The reason I opposed Lyndon Johnson's great society programs was not because I didn't care about poor people.
I was accused of that but that was not the case. And the reason numerous Conservatives don’t tolerate George W. Bush foreign policy doesn’t mean they have no compassion for the peoples of the Middle East.
If you think I'm not a "Libertarian" you're obviously ignorant of my resume; perhaps the most impressive Libertarian resume in the entire movement, save perhaps Scott Kohlhaas and Paul Jacob.
Funny, I've never run into you out on the Libertarian petitioning trail or the Libertarian campaign trail.
What's your Libertarian background? Show us the resume or shut the fuck up.
A fundamental rule of the Libertarian Movement:
He who worketh hardest for the Libertarian Movement, is the most Libertarian.
You haven't done jackshit asshole. So, don't you dare question my Libertarianism. You don't even know what the term means, Newbie!
2 million Cambodians being slaughtered in the Killing Fields and you're worried about being accused of being "reckless."
Sheesh!
You really are an absolute idiot.
If I were defenseless local with militant muzzies raping and pillaging me, my village and most of my country, you can believe I'd be praying for someone to rescue me and off the bad guys.
I don't support nation building, and I think we need to stop all foreign aid until and if we ever get our financial act together, but I do support doing the most basic act of common decency.
Eric,
Eric,
Another way you act like a liberal is that your comments are way too shrill.
Working hard to support neocon policies doesn't make you a libertarian.
It is obvious that you have a utopian leftist view of how our military should be used and what its job is.
Fuck you asshole. What the fuck "NeoCon" is there about me? I'm a fucking NeoCons worst fucking nightmare.
NeoCons like Fareed Shakaria are fucking pacifist stop-the-wars non-interventionists when it comes to fighting Islamo-Fascism. They are social conservatives.
They don't believe in drug legalization, sexual freedom, gambling, booze, all that. They're prudes.
Only a Libertarian can be a real true fighter against Islamo-Fascism
We fight back cause we don't want our wives and girlfriends being forced to wear Burqas from head-to-toe, our Marijuana smoking buddies thrown in jail for life, and our Gay friends hung on the town square.
You think NeoCons like Gary Bauer, Bill Bennett, or Fred Barnes give a fuck about any of that? Hell No!
And when it comes to fighting for Liberty, damned right I'm shrill. I've been in this Libertarian activism game for 25 friggin' years. I've been spit on, followed, stalked, blocked, yelled at, kicked, forcibly held, hammered by the liberal/NeoCon media, you name it.
I'm shrill cause this fighting for Liberty business is bare-knuckles street fighting. Not for the faint-hearted girlie men like you.
Anonymous:
Morons pray to be saved, smarter people try to save themselves. Or as Fred said:
I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs.
Eric:
Libertarian:
From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen.
Robert Nozick
Tell everyone what a "neocon" is, shitstain.
I'd like to know an instance when a NeoCon gave a flip about Genocide?
Carter = NeoCon
Under his watch 2 million Cambodians were slaughtered in the Killing Fields by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.
Clinton = NeoCon
Under his watch 800,000 Rwandans were axed to death.
Where is it that NeoCons talk about protecting Human Rights?
It's Libertarians who support Human Rights and Stopping Genocide. Or, Rightwing Human Rights advocates, like Reagan.
Chuck, not that I really take anyone who makes a comment like yours seriously, but neocons believe that democracy promotes liberty -- that there is something intrinsic about elections that causes freedom.
You put democracy in a place that has only known dictatorship and two things have always happened, you increase extremism and you increase instability.
We're supposed to be trying to reduce extremism in the Middle East.
The United States couldn't have created a successful Republic if it hadn't had a Constitutional Monarchy to evolve out of.
It seems a meaningless label. There used to be a definition, but the term has been rendered useless precisely because it's become the choice pejorative of self-important pansies. One might as well say "asshole" or "racist" or "fascist" instead.
No SteveJ, NeoCons believe in SOCIAL CONSERVATISM!
They support the Drug War - Bill Bennett
They are total Prudes when it comes to Sexual Freedom - Ban Hooters bars, No Titty bars in town, Stop selling Pornography on Military Bases, ect...
They could care less about the encroaching Nanny-State: Smoking bans, Seat Belt laws, 21 drinking Age even for Military Personnel.
It's not about Democracy. It's about Prudism.
Fareed Zakaria, Editor of Newsweek calls himself a "NeoCon."
He's the biggest panty-waste pansy ass pacifist, Islamist-loving, Illegal Immigrant supporting, UN promoting, Dickhead on the planet.
There's your "NeoConnism" for ya.
"neocons believe that democracy promotes liberty -- that there is something intrinsic about elections that causes freedom."
So sayeth you, whoever you are. You fucks live in a dream world of your own making.As long as you're making it up, you can never be wrong...and everybody loves to be right.
When I was your age, people like you played Dungeons and Dragons and left the rest of us alone. Now you little shits think you're lords of all you survey. You aren't half as clever as you think you are.
Ignorance is bliss...until it isn't.
Eric, do you have any idea what the term "neocon" actually means(meant)? It has(had) a very specific definition.
Who the fuck knows Chuck? It's changed so many times in the past 30 years since I've been in politics.
I remember when NeoCon meant Howard Phillips, Richard Viguerie, Kevin Phillips, and the "New Right."
Then it morphed into Bill Bennett, Pat Robertson, and the Religious Right.
It's latest incarnation is code word for "Jew Republican." You know we can't have any of those "Jooooos" around. So, yeah, Chuck. Today, NeoCon means to bigot AntiSemites, "Dirty Jew."
I guess that's what SteveJ means it to be.
The term used to mean guys like David Horowitz, Irving Kristol etc.. It was former lefties who had converted to the conservative position as newcomers.
Now the term means nothing.
Well, yeah, there was some of that too. But I don't think with David Horowitz.
Kevin Phillips was a former liberal who turned into a NeoCon. David Frum too.
But today, the term pretty much refers to anyone who disagrees with Ron Paul's foreign policy views.
Wikipedia thinks it is this:
Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that supports using economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. In economics, unlike paleoconservatives and libertarians, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a limited welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.
You notice too how the terms "Hawk" and "Reaganite" have pretty much dissapeared? I remember back in the 1980s, if you were Pro-Defense, you would be called Hawk. But nowadays, if you're Pro-Defense the Paulists call you a "NeoCon."
Go figure?
Or this from the same article:
In January 2009, at the close of President George W. Bush's second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, proposed the following as the "main characteristics of neoconservatism":
"a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
low tolerance for diplomacy
readiness to use military force
emphasis on US unilateral action
disdain for multilateral organizations
focus on the Middle East
an us versus them mentality".
Okay, by that definition Right Guy, the only part I agree with the NeoCons on is Human Rights.
I support a REPUBLIC Constitutional form of Government NOT Democracy. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for lunch.
Liberalism and support for a welfare state, sucks the big one.
And I have no patience for anyone who gives "lip service" to the free market, yet doesn't support free market policies.
So, I'm almost the complete polar opposite of a NeoCon.
Wait a cotton-pickin' second. "Support for unilateral action," without the UN and Entangling Alliances. Hell, that sounds like Ron Paul. Is he a "NeoCon"?
I guess you'd have to take it as a whole. You probably are half neocon. On the social side you differ. Like everything else, no one is 100% anything, except when you are dead.
No, not just the social side. I disagree with them on foreign policy, except Human Rights.
Like I said, Democracy is not the objective. The goal is FREEDOM. Democracy is way imperfect. Step in the right direction, maybe. But still bad.
Constitutional Republic defending Individual Rights is best.
That's hardly a NeoCon attitude.
But the neocon believes that democracy is a way to achieve a Republic.
Democracy has never paved the way for constitutional development and Republics.
Magna Carta did not come from Democracy. The progression in Europe in every case was Absolute Monarchy progressing to Constitutional Monarchy progressing to Constitutional Democracy. The Democracy always came last.
Japan had a constitutional phase starting in the 1860s and going well into the 1930s. The rule by the militarists was only a brief interruption. Japan put some reforms in place in Korea in the 1890s. Possibly Taiwan has had some land reform.
These places are not models for Iraq.
***** Constitutional Republic *****
Meaningless. So-called "Constitutional Republics" through history (including ours) supported slavery, oppression and oligarchy.
Our current form of government is nothing more than a Kleptocracy.
I would hardly call the first and second amendments meaningless, or any other number of constitutional provisions that keep the government in check.
Constitutional Republics have not been able to support slavery for very long.
Bullshit Gary.
The American constitutional model, for all of it's obvious flaws, is still the finest model for a large assembled populace ever devised. No benign dictatorship could ever have achieved what Americans have done under Liberty.
That it needs reconstruction is why we are here... you constantly sing to the choir - this, after quoting nonsense straight out of a liberal arts college course on the "eeevils" of America. You don't even understand the problems, let alone offer solutions.
Meaningless? Fine. Sell your guns, and stop posting here. Yield up your first two Amendment rights to the statist mob about us. You may as well, 95% of the time your comments are indistinguishable.
About half of our founders were abolitionists. Praise God none of them were navel-gazing retards like "gary". The United States ended the worldwide slave trade.
The result? Dumbasses like "gary" think we invented a 5000 year old institution and forget that we ended it.
Ignorant scumbags abound.
Change is hard chuck, for most people.
It's hard for all people because routines (norms) are a condition of sanity.
If norms are conditions of sanity, then the definition changes over time and therefore there isn't an objective measure of sanity, by your definition.
Gary Johnson, a much better choice than Obomney, disappoints those of us who feel the 9/11 Commission Report should be REOPENED.
Bldg 7 is a glaring out-point, i.e. there one minute, falling like a 'controlled demolition" the next. Based on that knowledge, one that Gary Johnson is privy to, gives reason enough to reopen.
Credibility, of the "War On Terror," would suffer the truth. Justification for this grotesque police state would immediately be minimized.
Then do a controlled demolition on it's coincidence and punish the ones responsible for it.
The "War On Terror" is the off-spring of PsyOps...Semper Fi Bldg 7
Post a Comment