Random Image
Latest Interviews
Stephen Romano
by Joshua Jabcuga
George Gallo
by Christopher Stipp
Clark Gregg
by Dennis Widmyer
Amy Hempel
by Rob Hart
Our Social Networks
The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul
Just got finished listening to disc one of my audiobook version of Revolution, which was about foreign policy, and Paul makes a powerful case for non-intervention. Much of what he says really does make a lot of sense.
That said, I think there might be cases that RP wouldn't intervene that I perhaps would. If there were extreme human rights violations happening in a country, I could imagine the possibility of intervention. He makes a powerful case that intervening is often bad, but he's not convinced me that it's *always* bad under any circumstance. There are always exceptions to a rule, after all.
But I was surprised how much I found myself nodding in agreement about what he was saying. I especially liked him pointing out that the foreign policy platform GW Bush ran on was far from what his actual policies became. Really shameful, that.
He also talked about McCain's attack on him, with McCain unfairly calling him an isolationist, which you can watch here,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEQ0LuKiuM
Paul didn't really get much of a chance to defend himself there, but he does in the book, and it's just a shame the vast majority of Americans will never get to hear his side of things, cuz people watch TV debates, but don't read.
Laura Collins, are you out there?
People need be commenting.
Intervention is an interesting issue. 2 points:
1.Many intervention issues would have never needed to be without initial interventions causing them, such as WWII.
2. There are non-governmental methods of 'intervention', such as de-investiment, or investment in an opposing force. Every individual can hit em where it hurts most, their pocketbook, by just being aware of what they're buying/where it comes from.
edit: Oh yeah, and I absolutely hate it when morons confuse (in fact, I think it's often intentional) non-interventionism and isolationism. Isolation is no trade, interaction, etc. Non-intervention is no military force being used overseas. It's like calling someone an isolationist who is social, leaves their home often, etc, but does not fight with people.
If it's not consensual, it's not moral. Ever.
Yes, it is a good read, and not at all difficult or dense. I highly recommend it to everyone, really. I am curious what his ideas about animal protection are though, not that I expect it to be covered in this book. One particular vote of his disturbs me greatly,
http://www.fund.org/press-releases/texas_dogfighting_072407.html
Laura Collins, are you out there?
Bug, I live in my own little box with my own little toys. Please LEAVE ME ALONE. I'll be a good boy has long has you let me have my MTV and Xbox. PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE GOVERMENT! I dont care what you do to other countries or my own countrymen. If I can just stay in my little box with TV's bullshit entertainment I swear I wont speak up. I WONT!
*sobs*
I HATE MYSELF!
"Fight back!" Ironman
Ambition never is in a greater hurry than I; it merely keeps pace with circumstances and with my general way of thinking. ---Napoleon Bonaparte
Wake early
if you want
another man's life or land.
No lamb
for the lazy wolf.
No battle's won in bed.
- The Havamal
WWI - Germany was railed from behind by the allies (granted, they started it) following the war. This destroyed their economy, the gov there crashed the mark, and the wealth of their empire pretty much was flushed throughout Europe.
This is what enabled Hitler to rise to power, thus, WWII happens. Had their been less international meddling, whether it had some justification or not, a greater intervention during WWII would not have been necessary.
At least that's how I feel. Since we can't actually know what would have happened, we can only theorize.
If it's not consensual, it's not moral. Ever.
RP blames intervention on Hitler's rise to power, but I'm surprised that Ron Paul doesn't plainly say that the United States should have intervened once he did come to power. Well, I guess I'm not surprised, since that would contradict his non-intervention stance. If the United States wasn't invaded, and remained neutral (following a policy of non-intervention) then the war could have had a very different outcome. I think McCain was fair in using this as an instance showing how non-intervention was bad. However, I don't like how McCain tied it to Iraq. And it was of course unfair of McCain to use the word isolationist (he can learn the difference by looking it up on Wikipedia...oh, I forget, McCain doesn't know how to use the internet).
Laura Collins, are you out there?
Copyright 2008 - A Writers Cult, LLC
Joined: 2008-02-03
From: