republicans cant wait to start another war with iran.

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Free Thinker, Mar 6, 2012.

  1. On Iran and Israel, Republican Candidates Dangerously Pandering

    Thank goodness for Republican resolve and tough talk. That's what prevented North Korea from becoming a nuclear-armed menace, and that's what eliminated Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam Hussein surely would have used to obliterate Israel and the United States.

    Now, if we could just get that flower child anti-Semite, Barack Obama, out of the White House, Republicans would be free to complete their eradication of the Axis of Evil, crushing Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons and turning the Islamic republic into a place fit for Bud Lite and MTV.

    Welcome to national security history as encountered on the Republican campaign trail, where all the major candidates have been pandering with abandon to the basest instincts of the pro-Israel hawks in the American Jewish community, while presenting themselves as the only people with the requisite stones to prevent Iranian-inflicted nuclear Armageddon.

    One problem with this storyline, however: The last time a potential nuclear power was allowed to morph into a bona fide nuclear threat (as North Korea did), it happened on the watch of a Republican President, George W. Bush. And it happened in large part because of Bush's eagerness to employ the sorts of policies embraced by the current crop of Republicans as the fix to scary global developments -- that is, bombastic threats of military action paired with an unwillingness to negotiate.
  2. rew


    The most pro-peace candidate is Ron Paul. Which is something the Huffington Post (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party) does not want to admit. (I remember back in 2008 when Hillary Clinton, who had voted for the Iraq war, said to an audience during her campaign that "all the Republicans favor the Iraq War." Politicians assume the electorate is stupid, and are usually right.)

    Ron Paul is, however a member of that most evil and retrograde group of people (in Free Thinker's view) -- Christians.

    Obama will still get us into more wars, just not with quite as much enthusiasm as Newt Gingrich.
  3. your problem is even republicans have figured out that ron paul,while he might have a couple of good ideas, is a racist kook who would take the us back to 1937.
    its not my fault that republicans who are christians seem to be nutcases. is it cause or effect?
    i am pulling for ron paul. i want him to do well enough to have the confidence to run 3rd party. go ron paul.
  4. rew


    Ron Paul the Racist:

    The usual lies we get from liberals.

    Ron Paul is a kook because he wants to uphold the Constitution, a document that has been largely ignored for the better part of a century. Which is exactly how liberals want it to be.
  5. ron paul knew what was in those newsletters. that is not his real problem. ron paul is a phony libertarian. he is against government interference except when its a cause he supports.

    go ron paul. please run third party.
  6. rew


    Please prove this assertion.

    Yes, Ron Paul is against a great deal of what our federal government does. That's because very little of what congress does is actually authorized by the constitution.

  7. Huff Post had a great article on Paul,probably better then anything from Fox

    If You Love Peace, Become a "Blue Republican" (Just for a Year)
    Posted: 7/7/11 12:00 PM ET

    The world lost its goodwill toward the USA when Americans voted for George W. Bush the second time around.

    I don't endorse the idea that American politics should be dictated by foreign opinions but a reading of the foreign press over the last six years reveals that the first election of President Bush Jr. was largely excused around the world since no one could have known what this new president was going to do.
    Moreover, America arguably didn't vote for him anyway in 2000.

    However, the second election President Bush was not excused, because by 2004, the modus operandi of the Bush administration was clear. He wanted to 1) conduct wars against countries that did not threaten us (e.g. Iraq), 2) oversee large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (e.g. Halliburton), 3) establish a legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4) establish a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc... )

    The more-or-less global delight upon Obama's election in 2008 followed largely from the hope that Americans had realized what a mistake they had made with Bush's second term and were therefore voting against the egregious actions of the then Republican establishment.

    When most Americans voted for "Hope" and "Change," the above four objectives were at the top of their list of what they "hoped" would be "changed."

    After two years, however, we now see that Obama 1) conducts wars against countries that do not threaten us (e.g. Libya, Yemen etc.), 2) oversees large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (e.g. Goldman Sachs), 3) supports the legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4) is growing a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc.. )

    Put another way, when it comes to such things as the killing of innocent people, taking from the common man to support cronies, and the elimination of the basic values that make our lives worth living, we had the hope, but we haven't had the change.

    Just as in 2000, Bush hadn't shown his true colors, in 2008, Obama had not either. A vote for either in those years was fair enough. But in 2012, if you vote for the Democratic nominee for president, you better have a moral justification that is SO good that it is a) worth killing innocent people who don't threaten you, b) transferring wealth to the rich and well connected, and c) the complete suspension of your right to privacy and such basic rights as protecting your child from being touched by a government official with the full force of the law behind him as he just follows his orders.

    Do I labor the point? Good.

    I don't believe that such a justification exists. I'm having difficulty seeing how a Democrat who voted for Obama (whom I supported) for the right reasons in 2008 can in good conscience do so again given that there is another candidate who has been consistent in his opposition to all of these things -- not just in words but in deeds.

    If you've read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social conscience -- even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty.

    If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again "because you've always been a Democrat" or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don't you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people equally.

    That Ron Paul, who has been standing up for these principles quietly for half a lifetime, happens to be a member of the Republican party is a lot less important than the principles that we should be voting on. The fact that he is not a party guy should be obvious from his extensive differences in policy from his party and the fact that many think, given his views, he should not run as a Republican at all.

    As Dr. Paul often points out, however, we live in a country with a corrupt political party duopoly... and the system is stacked against anyone who would run outside the two party system. So he's doing what he has to do. And so should we as Americans who love peace and freedom. It really isn't complicated.

    Now, I know that the Republican party stinks to many Democrats and Independents who care about social justice and civil rights, but we all need to be smart and play the system to get the political outcomes we seek: you don't have to like a party or even identify with it to sign up as a Republican for a year to help make sure that the Republican primaries are won by the one representative who has always been for peace, has always voted against bailouts, and has always opposed the reach of government into your bedroom, your relationships and your person.

    And if you are a Democrat or socially progressive Independent, you can't tell me you weren't hoping for all that from Obama.

    Perhaps you see too much small-mindedness, or mean spirit or religious craziness in the Republican party. Sure you do. You can find all of them in spades. But since you can't change the Democrat ticket for 2012, why not act where you can make a positive change -- by telling the Republican party where you really want it to go... in the direction of peace and civil liberty (both of which, if you go back just a little way, can be found in the traditions of republicanism).

    Just in case you need to make it absolutely clear for your friends at work that you have not gone to the dark side, I offer you a special moniker to set yourselves apart and give yourself a way back once you've done what needs to be done -- the "Blue Republican" -- to signify, of course, your liberal sensibilities and perhaps even your history as a Democratic voter. (Or why not just tell your friends that Bill Maher and Jon Stewart seem to have already gotten the message?)

    I am aware that the main objection to Ron Paul from the left concerns his belief that private charities and individuals are more effective in maintaining social welfare than the government. To this I ask one question. Do you believe so much in the effectiveness of our current centralized delivery of social welfare that it is worth the war making and the abrogation of civil rights supported by both Bush and Obama's administrations? Moreover, while Ron Paul would look to transition out of the huge federally run welfare programs in the long-run, that's not where he wants to start: his immediate fight would be to bring our forces back to the USA and to re-implement the Bill of Rights.

    Ron Paul's electoral weakness is not a difficulty in winning a presidential election. It is in winning a primary in a party with a Conservative constituency that includes the religious right and neo-cons. An influx of peace and freedom-loving independents and Democrats would change the math on the Republican side and potentially the future of America by setting up a presidential contest with a pro peace, pro-civil rights candidate (who could outflank Obama on those issues, at least, from the left).

    Again, this isn't an endorsement of the Republican party or a claim that the Republican record is better than the Democrat on any of the issues discussed in this article. (It isn't.) It is not even a statement that Dr. Paul is some kind of panacea of American politics. Rather, it is to recognize simply that the one potential Presidential candidate who wishes to stop killing innocent people in foreign wars and stop transferring the wealth of poor and working Americans to the corporate elites happens to be -- this time around -- a Republican.

    It is also to recognize that any other political choice is for a status quo in which all the issues that really matter (war and peace, civil rights) are settled for the military industrial complex and the interests of the State over the individual.

    So what'll it be -- same old team allegiance or new, Blue Republicans?
  8. I happen to like Paul's foreign policy opinions. It the domestic that is bonkers. Like the latest tornado victims. Paul says, oh well, too bad, they should have payed the insurance companies. Because capitalism is all we need.
  9. rew


    Why is it bonkers to say that people who want to be protected for rare but devastating weather damage should buy insurance for that? If I want to be compensated for my house burning down I must buy insurance. Why is it bonkers to say that if I want to be compensated for tornado damage I should buy insurance for that? Is it bonkers to say that a rich man who buys a fancy house on the beach should have to buy his own hurricane insurance, rather than get bailed out by taxpayers when the inevitable happens and his house gets washed out to sea?

    Americans are so used to being treated like wards of the state that when a politician comes along and says they're supposed to act like grown ups he gets called bonkers.
  10. are you going to force poor people to buy expensive insurance in tornado alley? isnt that similar to the mandate for health insurance the right wingers hate so much.
    #10     Mar 6, 2012