Ron Paul the Only Antiwar Candidate
I realize I make jokes a lot here, but this stuff is really serious. It is horrifying that every Republican candidate except Ron Paul is talking about “getting tough” with Iran. Can you imagine on September 10, 2001, if you’d told a group of 100 Americans: “Guess what? In a few years we will have Iran virtually surrounded by US troops, either as literal occupying forces or through deals with host governments. Our robot drones will blanket large stretches of land, blowing up people our government wants dead. The US president will say he has the right to kill even US citizens, so long as he assures us the person is a terrorist. When you want to fly from New York to LA, you will have to go into a machine that basically gives a government security agent a naked picture of you.” How many people would think such a transformation would be possible?
And Phil Donahue never made more sense. The Brit had to defend his great leader’s warmaking, but at least Donahue had the courage to admit that he wasn’t courageous enough to be a pacifist.
And we can be plucked up off the street and held without trial, right? Was that still part of the defense bill?
Iran, yeah. We’re hurtling down the highway right to conflict with Iran and the only thing that will stop it is the election of Ron Paul.
Who is going to pay for all this, anyway?
Don’t forget the assassination program for Iranian nuclear scientists …
How about when Santorum said he hoped America was involved in the assassination of these scientists in one of the debates? I feel like I live in bazaaro world. The fact that a guy running for president can say that in a debate, and not have it end his campaign is scary as shit.
Do you think we did that?
Daniel Kuehn:
Do you think we did that?
No way! I have a strong alibi for the dates in question. There is no way you will ever prove that I had anything to do with those deaths.
I would imagine that it is the Mossad that is doing the dirty work, but I would be willing to bet that we are aiding them.
It is my opinion that Israel and the US are trying to get Iran to make the first big move so that a war with Iran will seem justifiable to the US and American populations. Most Americans aren’t aware that strategic bombings and assassinations of Iranian scientists/military leaders has been going on for the past 2 years, it just doesn’t get reported in the US. Here are a few of interest:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/timeline-mysterious-deaths-and-blasts-linked-to-iran-s-nuclear-program-1.406704
Yes, these are acts of war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtyE0-QCmY8&feature=player_embedded
Yeah, I’ve seen it. The guy’s a freaking lunatic.
Blows my mind that a presidential candidate can say that and still go on. Shows how messed up this country is.
I don’t mean to be insensitive, but are you familiar with Bill Hicks’ “fundamentalist Christians” routine? Well… that’s kind of how I look at it.
I love bill hicks. The documentary that was recently done on him is fantastic.
Donahue was fantastic.
I’m not sure what he means by “I’m not brave enough to be a pacifist”, though. That seems like a throwaway line to me. It seems to me it would be relatively easy to be a pacifist (not that I’ve ever been one, so I don’t know). The position claims the moral high ground and has a lot of figureheads to point to (Ghandi, King, Thoreau, etc.). It doesn’t require much careful thought since you’re always against war (which is NOT to say pacifists aren’t thoughtful – only that one doesn’t need to be thoughtful to be a good pacifist). It seems easier to me in much the same way that being a complete warmonger seems relatively easy. And I think people slip into these easy solutions without really considering what’s right and what’s wrong.
The Piers Morgan bit on Paul was dumb too. Who thinks Paul is crazy because he likes the Constitution? We think he’s crazy because we think he has a crazy view of the Constitution. Morgan acts like everyone in America hates the Constitution except for Ron Paul.
Daniel Kuehn wrote:
The Piers Morgan bit on Paul was dumb too. Who thinks Paul is crazy because he likes the Constitution? We think he’s crazy because we think he has a crazy view of the Constitution. Morgan acts like everyone in America hates the Constitution except for Ron Paul.
Well, you’re right I suppose: Rush Limbaugh for example wouldn’t ever say, “RP supports the Constitution a little too much.” Instead, Limbaugh thinks it’s constitutional for the federal government to “defend the culture.” (He actually listed that–verbatim–as one of the proper functions of government on his show the other day.)
I guess Piers Morgan was referring to people who have the courage to admit they think a literal interpretation of the Constitution would make it a “suicide pact.”
re: “I guess Piers Morgan was referring to people who have the courage to admit they think a literal interpretation of the Constitution would make it a “suicide pact.”
Who’s that exactly?
Part of me definitely laments the fact that we don’t have a more constitutionally aware culture. Then again, I’m not sure we ever really did – even in the 1790s. I’ll grant that. But it’s surprising to me how much Paulites think that – because they think of themselves as being distinguished on the grounds that “they support the Constitution” that that’s how everyone else thinks of them. And it’s true that they have gotten some people to drink the Kool-Aid with their own claims (like Piers Morgan).
Limbaugh is low hanging fruit. Consider the guy that Paul would be running against – Barack Obama. No one can say that the difference between Obama and Paul is that Paul thinks we should follow the Constitution and Obama doesn’t. No one. The difference is in how they interpret the Constitution (and perhaps how much they yap about it on a daily basis), not their dedication to it.
“No one can say that the difference between Obama and Paul is that Paul thinks we should follow the Constitution and Obama doesn’t. No one.”
That both men pledge rhetorical allegiance to the Constitution does not mean that both are faithful to it. Need I remind you that Caesar Augustus held himself out as a champion of the Roman Republic?
Of course one of the differences between Obama and Paul is that Paul thinks we should follow the Constitution and Obama doesn’t. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial is unconstitutional. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that the president cannot start a war on his own and that Congress has the function of declaring war. I think you’re fooling yourself if you think Obama gives a damn about the Constitution or what it says.
Can someone confirm if NDAA really does reintroduce “enhanced interrogation techniques” ?
http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-detention-ndaa-aclu-303/
Although no matter the answer it seems the UN ruled that indefinite detention is already torture itself…
“I’m not sure what he means by “I’m not brave enough to be a pacifist”, though. That seems like a throwaway line to me. It seems to me it would be relatively easy to be a pacifist (not that I’ve ever been one, so I don’t know).”
It might be relatively easier to argue for pacifism in a rhetorical sense – it probably has a broad appeal to a wide swath of dispositions (at least on the surface). But beyond the talk, actually supporting and applying it with regards to political policy is a bit of a different ballgame (which is evidenced by the fact that it’s not a practice most politicians adopt once in power even when they campaign on it).
An (over-simplified) analogy: It’s relatively easy to walk around talking to strangers in your community, prosthelytizing and espousing the virtues of peace. It’s another thing to take down the “Will Shoot Trespassers” signs off the outer reaches of your property and (publicly) announce that you’ve developed reservations about using physical violence to solve problems.
There’s one sense in which you’re simply arguing for an embrace of passivity. And then there’s a sense of actually embracing it; in which case you may be revoking both implicit and explicit threats towards third parties for certain actions. In a way (and I think this is the larger argument for military hegemony) it’s thought that those implicit threats are often what “keeps the peace”. And, conversely, it’s thought that the removal of such threats will give questionable parties carte blanche to do questionable things.
I think, in that way, saying that you’re not “brave enough to be a pacifist” is a kinder, gentler way of saying that you believe a policy of pacifism invites more violence, on net. Now, whether or not that’s true (of course) is another argument.
That’s a good point.