Conservatives, Bankrupting America
This is an old article, but a friend of mine recently reminded me of it.
Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S.
"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.
He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."
"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.
He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."
"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.
The War Party will insist that an interventionist foreign policy is the ONLY policy that will protect America. The War Party, obviously, doesn’t understand economics.
The more we over-extend our Empire, maintaining a global military machine, the more of a burden it will be on the American economy to create the necessary wealth to feed it. Given that the trend here in America is toward MORE socialism, those Conservatives who are willing to write off non-interventionists like Ron Paul are virtually guaranteeing America’s destruction. Of course, to these people, its more important to "feel good" about what you are doing, rather than worry about the real effects and consequences of their policy proposals.
These people are delusional. And when America’s Empire collapses, you can rest assured that they will not look in the mirror for the answers to the question of why it all happened. They will point the finger and "liberals" and "peace punks".
But the truth is, they will have destroyed America.
posted by Libertarian Jason at 10:19 AM
23 Comments:
Medicare Part D will bankrupt us long before smashing the terror states will.
War is temporary. Govt. programs are, sadly, forever.
War IS a government program, Mark.
Ah, so you would say we should have done nothing after 9/11, then, Jason? Would that have been better?
You talk about noninterventionism like it is so great. Ask the 6 million Jews how great it was when the US and others did nothing...ask the 20 million stalin killed. Oh wait, it doesn't concern us. I thought libertarians in their name had liberty, which I thought according to the Dec and the Constitution are the rights of all people? but, it is just those other people getting killed, not me. Doesn't concern me. Nope. Wait, the Nazis are coming for me? Oh crap, we need to do something...too late.
And if you think isolationism in economics is the answer too, look at what that did to America going back as far as Jefferson and his tariffs to create isolationism...economic disaster.
So, what we can conclude, then, is that you only care for yourself, that liberty is great as long as you have it. And, that you want us to go back to 1808, the glory days. So, under your leadership, Hitler would have killed all the Jews, but wait, then we wouldn't have a problem in the mid east....so, are you for the Final Solution, Jason? Are you for a decrease in employment?
You're confusing Republican with Conservative. Most conservatives are Republican, but most Republicans are not conservative (Bush, McCain, etc.). However, The entire dollars spent on the GWOT in 4 1/2 years is approximately equal to 1 year of Medicare/Medicaid.
Capt America -
Nice smear. Admit it, you were educated in a government school, weren't you?
A couple of things you are overlooking...
1) It was American intervention in WW 1 that created the conditions ripe for Hitler to come to power in the interwar years. Had we stayed out of it, it is entirely likely that a negotiated truce would have negotiated between the warring parties, which would have led to a more stable postwar germany. However, as it stood, our entry into the war tipped the scales of power in that war, which lead to a crushing defeat of Germany and the supremely harsh peace terms thereafter.
So... no American intervention, no Hiter, no second world war, no Cold War, etc. etc. etc.
Please try to brush up on your history before spouting off the nonsense like you uttered above.
2) As I have argued plenty of times before, I am completely in favor of free trade - REAL free trade... not this phony managed trade masquerading as free trade as we see with NAFTA and CAFTA.
3) For the 172353827825351st time, isolationism and non-interventionism are two different things.
Try again.
-LJ
Joe C -
6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Its extremely hard to tell Republican from Conservative, since so many Conservatives spend so much time justifying anything and everything the Republican party does. Sure, they may quibble over inconsequential details, but by and large, they are firmly chained to the Republican Plantations.
Ahhh, so we were wrong in WWI...I see...so by getting in and bringing an end to the war, we were wrong...it was our fault hitler came to power, even though we tried to stabilize the Weimar republic through loans....I see, you blame america for everything...If you don't like it...leave it.
And aren't you the one smearing? I mean, you say if we hadn't done this, then this wouldn't have happened? How do you know? How do you know Hitler wouldn't have come to power? Are you saying that Hitler is our fault? That sounds like a smear. In fact, I would say it was the noninterventionalist crowd that caused the problems post wwi, not those who wanted to reach out. If we would have taken a forceful stance, maybe england and france would not have bankrupted germany so much. But, of course, you with your crystal ball can see what might have happened?
Again, quit dodging the question. So, we shouldn't have gone into wwii, is that what you are saying? We should have allowed Hitler to take over europe, right? Is that what you are saying?
I study history, Jason. That is what I love about you libertarians. You think because you can recite federalist no. 7 by heart or can remember clause 3 of article II of the Constitution that that makes you better than everyone. You are just as elitist as you claim Reps and Dems are. If someone challenges you, they cannot have a differing view and ask questions, they are warmongers and smear merchants. Quit dodging Jason? Should we have allowed the Final Solution?
And, Jason, if we are such an empire, how come the countries where we have bases are frequently acting on their own against our interests? IF we are such empire builders, why is it that saudi rakes up oil prices? Why do the french do what they want? If it has always been about empire, why do we still have a france and britain? Shouldn't they be little America I and II?
Now you will spout off that we have infected them and dominate them through our culture, blah de blah.
And again, Jason, what about liberty? I guess we should never share it, according to your view, even though liberty is part of the name of your ideology. Answer my questions: when is intervention justified? What is "fair trade"? Should we have allowed the final solution?
According to your logic, even as american citizens were being killed by u boats, we should have stood by and allowed europe to be crippled for several more years, rather than enter wwi at all. Hmmm....But then, rather than answer my question about the Jewish issue, you say, well, if we hadn't turned this way, this wouldn't have happened, and there would have been peace and joy.
But guess what, Jase? Didn't happen. Speak in reality, not some hypothetical. WWII happened. You are fdr. Do you just fight a reprisal against Japan or do you enter wwii full force, as we did?
Captain –
(Nice moniker, BTW… I’m sure it allows you to thump your chest pretty loudly.)
To say that we tried to support the Weimar Republic through loans is missing the point entirely. All intervention leads to further problems which they precipitate calls for more intervention. Those “loans” would not have been necessary had Germany not been in the disastrous economic circumstances they were in, and they wouldn’t have been in those circumstances had they not had such a resounding defeat in WWI, and they wouldn’t have had that resounding defeat had we not entered the war and tipped the scales of what was an evenly matched conflict.
Study your history. In WWI, neither side could maintain any advantage for very long. It was a stalemate for years. From my understanding, it’s entirely likely that a negotiated truce would have taken place eventually, and probably in short order. A negotiated truce would certainly not have lead to demand for “war reparations” or a removal of the Kaiser from the throne. Germany would have maintained a more stable political structure, as well as economic one.
Study your history! Hitler came to power because he promised to restore German strength. The economic destruction of Germany made his message attractive to the German people. This is virtually indisputed among historians. Its up to connect the dots between cause and effect.
No intervention in WW1 means no demolition of Germany, no Hitler, no WW2, no “final solution”, no Cold War, no threat of nuclear annihilation, etc. Its all a chain of cause and effect, with each ensuing effect being more horrible than the one before. Somewhere it has to stop. You may argue that non-interventionism is unjust, but I would challenge you to defend the justice of the consequences of interventionism.
Or don’t you believe actions have consequences?
But perhaps you can tell me what would have happened had we not intervened in WW1? If you think world history would have been completely unaltered, then explain to me, using historical evidence and rational logic, on what grounds you have for such a view. My guess is that you’re just fantasizing that may all be the case.
As far as your other questions…how exactly do we “share” liberty? If you are speaking of stripping me of my liberties in order to sustain a perpetual war against a nebulous omni-present enemy, then I fail to see how that’s “sharing” anything.
I would say intervention by the State is never justified. However, I have no problem with you sending your money, or enlisting in the foreign legion to go act on your beliefs. What I object to is being forced to support your particular cause. If its so important to you… YOU do something about it. Leave me out of it. I have my own priorities in life, and being a slave to your anxieties about the world is not one of them.
Fair trade? That’s a nonsense term if I ever heard one. That’s just a glossy word for protectionism and State subsidies.
-LJ
Again, Jason, we don't have the ability to see if your idea of what may have happened in wwi would have happened. Yes, a truce may have happened eventually, or we could have been in a perpetual state of war, where a whole slew of countries were ruined and trade and economics went down the toilet.
Again, without rationalizing it by, well, if we hadn't done this then this would not have happened. Let's look at what DID happen. Are you saying we should never have gotten involved in WWII? Don't hide behind the prisms of causality and cause and effect theories. Give me your cold hard view. Are you afraid? Or are you just going to continue the spin on the fact that you are a self serving anti-semite and anti any other country.
And Jason, your boy Ron Paul is the one who touts fair trade or we cut you off, not me. Nice Try.
Cap'n -
1) Please provide an actual (and credible) reference to where Ron Paul is anti-free trade, and instead is pro-"fair" trade. He's stated on numerous occassions that he's for free trade, and his writings for the past umpteen number of years reinforce that.
2) You historical question is biased, and I'm not going to answer it. History did not begin in 1939, and its just plain ignorant to pretend otherwise. You can throw about all the slurs you want, it just proves you can't use logic and facts to support your position.
Quit tapdancing, jason. Quit saying if coulda would shoulda. Deal in what happened? Should we have entered wwii? Were we justified in goin after japan and germany? Should we have allowed the final solution? Quit tapdancing and answer this simple, basic question. You won't even print this because you are a coward.
Should we have meddled in 1917?
Quit tapdancing, deal in what happened, and answer that.
I ask you a question...you refuse to answer and instead hurl insults and change the subject....sounds like a dodge to me....Coward.
Since this is going no where, this will be my last response to you. I've humored your petty ignorance long enough. So if you'd like to debate in a thoughtful and intellectually honest way, pray, continue.
As far as insults.. you are the one accusing me of anti-semitism. Right from the get go you were throwing smears.
I'm not changing the topic...I'm showing you a side of the issue you are willfully being ignorant of.
In any event, I've stated my position. Nothing you've said rises above the level of your average brainwashed government school propaganda. Stop back after you go read a few more books.
Jason,
How is changing the subject being intellectually honest? I am not willfully ignorant of the idea that some things might have been different. However, maybe they would have been and maybe they would not. That's the great part about monkeying with history. You can cite this source that says one thing and this one that says something else would have happened. Ultimately, we have WHAT HAPPENED, and our reaction to it. Now, let's just say, for the sakw of argument, that we should not have gone in in 1917....the fact remains that we did, and whatever you think we caused, happened. OK...let's just say that is correct. Now, given that deep concession on my part, were we wrong to get involved in World War II?
And don't ever insult my intelligence. I find it ironic that you would do so and you don't even know me.
All you do is dodge the question again and again. Dodging a question with another question is not a logical discussion. It is a rhetorical tactic that shows you cannot answer the question.
I think we were justified in entering wwi. Our citizens were being murdered by u-boats, ala the lusitania. Our interests would have been harmed by a continued war.
And, let's continue to play your "alternate outcomes" game. What if hitler would have been accepted to art school? What if hitler would have been more capable and moved higher in the german army? What if ...what if...what if...we are dealing with what happened, not what might have happened. I acknowledge that a truce may have been a possiblity, but was not likely considering the rhetoric, and very likely what would have resulted from prolonged war would have been civil war in germany and other areas as the region destabilized. But, again, we are dealing in reality. Come now, answer the question: should we have gotten into world war ii or not?
And, isn't it the art school's fault, or is that America's fault as well????
And as someone who has not only participated in debating competitions as well as judging them, your attempts at insulting me are goofy. Dodging the question and evading the query is not acceptable and shows weakness.
Capt -
Then the burden of proof is on you to justify that the resulting chaos from the interwar period, and Hitler's rise to power, was "worth it". If you think going to war in 1917 was justified, then what you are saying is that, even with the advantages of hindsight, responding to the injustices you listed to you were more important than the possibility of the "Final Solution" being the consequence of intervention in 1917.
That's your policy. Not mine.
-LJ
Ahh, so you won't answer the question? game...set...match.
Heh. Not likely, Capt, but your intellectual dishonesty prevents you from seeing your own hypocrisy.
You want me to answer a question about something that cannot be changed, but happened... but you yourself won't submit to the same criteria. The rules of debate for you are different, right?
My question is... knowing that the results of intervention in 1917 lead to a destroyed german economy whihc provided a ripe environment for Hitler to come to power and start exterminating Jews... would you still advocate getting involved in WW1?
You answer thus far has been yes. Revenging the Lusitania was worth allowing 6 million Jews to be incinerated.
Now whose the anti-semite?
Nice try Jason, but again, you dodge the question. It was more than the Lusitania, nice try. And, what if Hitler had gotten into art school? Then he would have never ever been a dictator....where does this factor into the "let's talk about alternate timelines that didn't happen but could have" theories of yours? Again, you don't answer the question or even remotely address the premise. Instead, you continue to talk about things that didn't happen but could have, or this is absolutely the only causality that led to this. Are you so one dimensional in your thinking that you think causality is simply linear? Come now. Are you 12?
Capt -
Who cares if Hitler got into art school? What would that have to do with anything? That is just a bizarre question.
But the fact remains...you want to play a hypothetical game of "should we have?" with me, but you refuse to acknowledge turnabout. The rules of debate you want to set up for me don't apply to you.
The bottom line is...you won't acknowledge that my solution to the "final solution" is legit. You want to ask questions in a metaphorical test-tube, when I am trying to address our issues in a real world sense. My answer to "how should we have prevented the final solution"...was to not have done the things which lead up to it. For you, there is only one answer to State-Caused problems: More State.
This is why, I surmise, you probably think all State caused problems...from education, to welfare, to healthcare, to terrorism... have only one solution: More State intervention.
Obviously, you're not a Conservative...but few people are these days....who takes seriously the old quip that "government is the problem, not the solution".
Again, assumptions, innuendo and insult. You sound like a liberal media reporter.
What does what if hitler got into art school have to do with anything? If he had become an artist, he wouldn't have gotten into the nazi party and would instead have lived in austria painting postcards.
See, we can play hypothetical all we want. True historians acknowledge causality, but they also look at things in the prism of the the times, not with hindsight in terms of determining hte rightness or wrongness of something and the merits of judgement.
You cherrypick your events of causality and anyone who challenges them with others is wrong. Sounds like you are a zealot, and not open to other modes of thought.
Again, should we have entered wwii in your view?
Yes.. Because pointing out that someone is not a Conservative is "an insult". Dude... you're a state worshipper who's up to his eyeballs in state propaganda. Were you educated in a government school?
Even if Hitler hadn't gotten into school, and still joined the Nazi party, it wouldn't have meant he would have automatically gotten political power. He only came to power because the environment provided the opportunity.
Yes... Judge things by the times. Hitler came to power in an interwar Germany that had been demolished economically by the first war, and the ensuing war reparations the Allies foisted upon them.
That would not have happened if we hadn't gotten involved and tipped the balance of power in the conflict.
But more to the point... I like how you've ignored the central point of the post that started this "debate"... namely that our wars and Empire are going to ruin us economically, which is the goal of bin Laden and his terrorists.
Of course, that's what you State Worshippers do...so I'm not surprised.
Post a Comment
<< Home