Oops! Accidentally helped Mao again to win the civil war.
So much for the “race” to Berlin.
I’m not going to openly speculate on his hidden agenda, but his administration was full of later convicted soviet agents and communists and he never failed to follow their plans to the letter contra his election promise to weed out any such interests from his administration. He succeeded as much at that as he did at reducing spending by 25%. But feel free to name a single thing that the U.S. did between 1932 and 1945 (and even after that under Truman) that was remotely against the interest of “Uncle Joe”. You won’t be able to because every single thing the U.S. did, inlcuding a number of things after the war, helped The USSR.
Quite the comedian, Harry Hopkins:
everyone involved in that bombing should’ve been burnt at the stake.
My father in law’s brother was killed in the Hiroshima bombing. They never found him, so they assume he died. His school was located near the epicenter. His mother spent years looking for him.
On my maternal side, my grandfather was a Marine stationed at Tinian. So you could say my grandfather sent the bomb off to kill my children’s granduncle.
I lived in Hiroshima for several years and visited the memorial often. Very moving. Don’t think I’ve ever visited it without being hit hard by the horrific suffering it caused. I also visited the USS Arizona Memerial in Pearl Harbor a couple times. Read a lot about the Nanking Rape, Bataan Death March, etc.
I think war is unjustifiable, ether way. You cannot justify killing innocent people, and you cannot allow yourself or your countrymen to be murdered for lack of responding. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. And yes, I’ve read the attempts by some to justify civilian causalties, and they aren’t convincing.
Speaking of Holocausts. My favourite part of WW2:
Exactly the same thing Stalin did to the jews. By direct FDR order, of course.
I’m not going to quote any more from the book. I’m just going to summarize the unavoidable conclusion for which the evidence is stacked sky high and countered by nothing.
The protection of Poland was the pretense for Britain and U.S. warring against Germany. Britain and U.S. ended in double-crossing the exiled government, installing a communist regime, covering up Soviet atrocities and annexing half of Poland into USSR.
The protection of China was the pretense for the U.S. and Britain warring against Japan. Britain and U.S. ended in double-crossing the Chinese government and causing the communist takeover.
WW2 was a sham concocted by communist moles and useful idiots and thoroughly scrubbed down and whitewashed from memory/knowledge by more of both. It resulted in half the world being turned into a human slaughterhouse. Therefore, any attempt to justify any tactic used in the duration, from the atomic bombs to the flint used to sharpen the bayonets, is an exercise in raving mad futility,
Rett: "Please outline what views of Ron Paul are not consistent with the Austrian school. "
I owe you an apology for my use of sarcasm, which apparently does not come across very well in internet forums. I am a strong supporter of Ron Paul, he is courageous to say the least. On economic matters, the views of Ron Paul are entirely consistent with the Austrian school.
Rett: “In 1994, it (balanced budget amendment) was one of the tenets of the “contract with America” that swept the republicans to power.”
Exactly, swept them into power. And where is the amendment?
Rett: "moreover more fiscal conservatives are being elected to local and state office than ever before. "
There is only one fiscal conservative in politics, his name is Ron Paul. Don’t listen to what politicians say, watch what they do.
Rett: “Furthermore, the American people will not riot, we are still exceptional.”
Wrong. Look at government employee unions across the nation. Pull their benefits, and watch what happens. Americans accustomed to receiving benefits, or their salary, from the taxpayer (ie, from the dwindling private sector) will fill the streets if benefits are cut.
Rett: “The “clause” that authorizes the Constitution to establish global democracy is Article One, Section Eight.”
Didn’t see anything there that authorizes the establishment of global democracy. Saw “provide for the Common Defense” and power to declare war.
Like I said, it took about three years for me to rid myself of the idea that limited government is possible. I can’t expect you to abandon this idea in few pages on this thread.
‘The “clause” that authorizes the Constitution to establish global democracy is Article One, Section Eight. Also, the President has the authority to use force to protect American interests, albeit with the tacit approval of Congress. As I have repeatedly stated’
I’m surprised to learn that the US constitution extends itself beyond the US borders.
’ “democracies don’t and wont wage war on each other” – the more democratized the world becomes the more unlikely that self-serving autocratic regimes will be able to wage war. Moreover, if the globe was populated by representative governments, then war would become extinct’
Actually democracies have and will continue to wage war on each other. This whole premise that once a country becomes democratic it ceases to be able to retain an aggressive foreign policy is quite absurd.
‘Please outline what views of Ron Paul are not consistent with the Austrian school. Other than his opposition to abortion – I thought he is a strong support of the Austrian school. For example, he is an advocate for dramatically reduced government expenditures across the board, including the military.’
The Austrian school is mainly concerned with economic study. Now there are some scholars trying to broaden the scope of the Austrian school to include philosophy and perhaps a theory of history but Ron Paul really hasn’t talked about either of those. I think you should be more clear with your sentences because you seem to be using ‘Austrian school’ and ‘anarchists’ interchangibly
My grandmother was telling me a few months ago about how she watched german planes flying between the buildings along the streets of London dropping incendiaries before going to Canada. My grandfather got shot at Dieppe and got a glass eye. I still have pictures of him with his tank and crew.
Ha. Had to edit a discrepancy…
There is no part of the Constitution that states that the US government will establish democracies throughout the world. However, it does say that the President has the power to wage war and that the Congress has the power to fund it. As long as Congress is on board, the president can fight any war he wants.
Actually democracies have and will continue to wage war on each other. This whole premise that once a country becomes democratic it ceases to be able to retain an aggressive foreign policy is quite absurd. – andrew cain
It would be helpful if you took the time to read my previous posts on this thread regarding the type of democracies I was referring to before making sweeping generalizations devoid of context.
I stated that there are higher order democracies that have been qualified by various scales, the one I cited was from Freedom House.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=15 (as I stated previously on this thread, higher order democracies are rated (1) for both civil libertires and political freedom.)
note that using this scale, it is still plausible for the USA to engage in conflict with Mexico, since mexico is not a higher order democracies. There are approximately 50 higher order democracies in the world today, and that number is increasing year after year.
Moreover, indeed democracies of this order will not and have not engaged in conflict. Of course you are free to engage in any hypothetical fantasyland scenarios in which conflict would occur among these nations. For example, the USA and costa rica. or the USA and belguim, USA new zealand and the USA, et al.
The Austrian school is mainly concerned with economic study. Now there are some scholars trying to broaden the scope of the Austrian school to include philosophy and perhaps a theory of history but Ron Paul really hasn’t talked about either of those. I think you should be more clear with your sentences because you seem to be using ‘Austrian school’ and ‘anarchists’ interchangibly --cain
again, you need to read the posts. This has been covered. I was corrected by Illuminatus? on this issue. it appears that there are anarchists among the more practical and less rigid austrians (classical liberals) of which I guess I could be placed.
Lastly, the executive branch and the congress are both enlisted to defend the USA from threats both foreign and domestic. If the promotion of democracy abroad makes the world safer, and in turn the USA – then the Constitution can indeed be used to legitimately democratize the globe. Preferably by the use of soft power, or by coopting potential enemies. However, when dealing with miscalculating expansionists despots who have aligned with non-state terror groups, premptive and preventative war must be “on the table”
chloe,
Anything is possible in politics, particularily in this environment. For example, the Republicans put the balanced budget amendment on the table in 1994 and The American people responded positively. My assertion is that if a poll were taken , the overwhelming majority of Americans would support it. You should read my entire statement on the issue, I stated unequivocally that it was possible IF republicans took control of congress in 2010 or 2012 (highly plausible) AND control of the executive branch (highly plausible). Moreover, irrespective of whether they are democratic or republican controlled, state governments would welcome a balanced budget amendment that would give the states greater power over the federal government.
Your statement that ron paul is the only fiscal conservative is just wrong, period. Most republicans are fiscal conservatives and would vote for a balanced budget amendment and further reductions in government (note graham, mcain, bush, crist, et al are not fiscal conservatives and these types must be voted out before the goal of limited government is realized).
http://www.ntu.org/on-capitol-hill/ntu-rates-congress/p10-02-18-ntu-rating-final-pages.pdf (note that myriad republicans rated in the 90’s along with ron paul, including jim demint who scored higher than paul.)
True, citizens are loath to surrender their benefits, however they can be educated that there is no alternative but abject poverty and decline – or to quote Churchill – we will be equal in our misery.
However, your pessimism is not based on ALL of the facts. For example, union membership has declined precipitously since the 1950’s. Moreover, there is a backlash that is emerging against government waste, corruption, and inefficiency as exemplified by the recent Tea Party Moverment. Moreover, the elections in Mass. NJ, and Virginia are stunning.
Lastly, it is amusing that many supposed Austrians are resigned to bitchin and moaning. For example, they have no solutions or propositions other than to criticize those that do. Presumably, they are more than willing to surrender your freedoms and the fruits of your hard earned labor to the despotic, greedy, and corrupt statist now in power.
In summary, stop complaining and get in the fight – the battle is at hand.
I actually don’t think we’ve got majority support for a balanced budget amendment on the Republican side. The problem is demographics. What I mean is that there are a lot of old Republicans.
I’m not going to quote any more from the book. I’m just going to summarize the unavoidable conclusion for which the evidence is stacked sky high and countered by nothing.
The protection of Poland was the pretense for Britain and U.S. warring against Germany. Britain and U.S. ended in double-crossing the exiled government, installing a communist regime, covering up Soviet atrocities and annexing half of Poland into USSR.
The protection of China was the pretense for the U.S. and Britain warring against Japan. Britain and U.S. ended in double-crossing the Chinese government and causing the communist takeover.
WW2 was a sham concocted by communist moles and useful idiots and thoroughly scrubbed down and whitewashed from memory/knowledge by more of both. It resulted in half the world being turned into a human slaughterhouse. Therefore, any attempt to justify any tactic used in the duration, from the atomic bombs to the flint used to sharpen the bayonets, is an exercise in raving mad futility,–caley
This rant does not even qualify as conspiracy theory – since bogus theories are at least support by 1% fact.
note that his analysis is based solely on US and Brit actions that would not have occurred had hitler, tojo, and stalin not unilaterally initiated war by attacking china and poland. for example, these conspiracy theorists always focus on the dependent variables while clueless to the independent variables that are the causal mechanisms that influence history.
In summary, using caley’s logic, the justified allied response to blind aggression against peaceful neighbors was the tragedy of the war – not german and japanese invasions of peaceful neighbors.
The protection of Poland was the pretense for Britain and U.S. warring against Germany. --caley
The protection of China was the pretense for the U.S. and Britain warring against Japan. --caley
so by caletys logic, hitler and tojo were American and Brit agents since by invading poland and china they were acting in our interests.
caley, try reading more than just one book on the subject.
I actually don’t think we’ve got majority support for a balanced budget amendment on the Republican side. The problem is demographics. What I mean is that there are a lot of old Republicans.–bloom
I cant dispute that.
however, we need to educate people of the dangers of deficit spending, fiat currency, and crony capitalism that is slowly destroying the civilized world
austrian theory isnt rocket science, indeed, truth is the simplest of all arguments. note that as austrian theory becomes more mainstream among academia, media, and pop culture then we will see changes similar to what spurred the recent Tea Party phenomenon
or do any of the anarchist on this thread have a better idea on how to roll back the size and scope of government. note that bitchin and whinin is going to do it.
I’ve read the attempts by some to justify civilian causalties, and they aren’t convincing.–john scott
you dont think there are times when the killing of civilians can result in a net savings in innocent lives ???
what if civilians are responsible for supporting the war effort, is it preferably for you to engage tanks, planes, and battleships after they are completed ?
for example, what if the enemy used a civilian shield, would you simply die rather than shoot both the civilian and the enemy combatant?
in summary, lets get friggin serious folks.
you dont think there are times when the killing of civilians can result in a net savings in innocent lives ???
You can attempt to justify any number of murders on consequentialist grounds, but consequentialism fails when it attempts to make interpersonal comparisons of utility.
what if civilians are responsible for supporting the war effort
My children’s granduncle was 9 or 10 years old, a schoolboy. He wasn’t supporting the war effort. He had lost a large number of his relatives in the war and family opposed all war. That didn’t stop people like you from dropping an atomic bomb near his school.
for example, what if the enemy used a civilian shield, would you simply die rather than shoot both the civilian and the enemy combatant?
Like I said, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
in summary, lets get friggin serious folks.
Yes, let’s get real. The key to getting real is putting aside the implicit license to kill you rely on when you talk of war. Think of it as situation in your hometown; not war, but a group of aggressors who hold hostage a large number of men, women and children who don’t support the aggressors. The aggressors and their hostages live in a compound in the center of town and launch rockets into town every day and night.
You cannot allow them to keep lauching rockets into the town. And you cannot drop a bomb on the compound which indiscriminately kills innocent men, women and children. What do you do? Seem to me that you’re damned either way.
“Like I said, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”
Nah, I doubt that. I’d shoot the civilian and the soldier using him as a shield and take it up with God later.
"And you cannot drop a bomb on the compound which indiscriminately kills innocent men, women and children. "
Who says I can’t?
“The key to getting real is putting aside the implicit license to kill you rely on when you talk of war.”
But that’s how war works, there are no rules in war. Do not die, try to win. That is the only rule.
EDIT: I should probably make it clear here i’m talking strategy and tactics not morals per se.
‘I stated that there are higher order democracies that have been qualified by various scales, the one I cited was from Freedom House.’
Firstly, realize that you said ‘democracies.’ I will take your statements at face value so don’t begrudge me for doing such a thing. Next, explain the difference between higher and lower democracy. What constitutes a ‘higher order democracy’?
'Lastly, the executive branch and the congress are both enlisted to defend the USA from threats both foreign and domestic. If the promotion of democracy abroad makes the world safer, and in turn the USA – then the Constitution can indeed be used to legitimately democratize the globe. ’
Since when did preemptive strikes become ‘defense’? For someone who seems to be propounding the Constitution and trying to ‘school’ individuals in history, you have certainly missed one of the most crucial points of the mentality of the the ‘founding fathers’
George Washington - No entangling alliances
Thomas Jefferson - Commerce with all nations, alliances with none
James Madison - Do not go abroad looking for monsters to slay
I’m sure there are other less famous quotes spoken by other individuals. Now the founding fathers are simply men, not saints, so they could be wrong. However, they created the document that you seem to be preaching and to interpret it in a way that contradicts its essence destroys the validity of said essence. The Constitution ceases to be a constitution when it is interpreted in a way which contradicts its nature. I don’t really care because I find the Constitution to be utilized in tyrannical fashion more then in a liberty-orientated way which can be seen through your justification of a hegemonic global system of governance