Comments


  • BS Spotter.

    You asked: I think you've mentioned/suggested you lean toward the Libertarian Democrats. How would you say you align with their basic foreign policy principles and the general libertarian non-aggression principles?
    LD Foreign Policy:
    1) Bring our troops home.
    2) Protect our borders.
    3) Engage all nations in fair trade
    My answer:
    My political ideology is shaped by the likes of Paul C. Fisher, Malcolm X, MLK, the Kennedy Brothers, Harry Truman, Ross Perot, and William Jennings Bryan etc. I am align with the Libertarian Democrats when it goes to their pro-energy, the second Amendment, being anti-Fed, and anti-Patriot Act policies.
    1) I support bringing all of the troops home with the expectation of North Korea at this time until there is a true peace treaty between North Korea and the South and us as well. Make no mistake I do not mean forever or starting a war.
    2) http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/weblo...
    3) We need fair trade not free trade. De-globalize the economy by ending NAFTA, CAFTA, and remove membership from the WTO.

    Since you said: Regarding Afghanistan: Now that the poppy fields have been producing for the CIA, I think we'll be able to wind down the occupation there when we need the resources to occupy Iran.

    You might on to something......

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86CKUP...

    Mr. Williams

    February 12, 2012 at 2:23 a.m.

  • Writein,

    As I've said, Obama's hand may (appear to) be forced at some point, but regardless of the justifications, it'll rattle some people from their Left-Right slumber. If he serves another term, the charade will have to be that much more elaborate to keep up appearances. It'll be interesting to see what role the Congress plays in this.

    Regarding Afghanistan: Now that the poppy fields have been producing for the CIA, I think we'll be able to wind down the occupation there when we need the resources to occupy Iran.

    I think you've mentioned/suggested you lean toward the Libertarian Democrats. How would you say you align with their basic foreign policy principles and the general libertarian non-aggression principles?

    LD Foreign Policy:
    1) Bring our troops home.
    2) Protect our borders.
    3) Engage all nations in fair trade.

    February 8, 2012 at 11:40 a.m.

  • vet43,

    That's a very likely use for them. They should bomb the bunker full of weapons we (US & Israel) sold them while they're at it.

    February 7, 2012 at 3:08 p.m.

  • Not long ago the US sold a number of super-bunker busters to Israel. Now what do think they want them for? Underground nuclear facility?

    February 7, 2012 at 2:21 p.m.

  • Observer said: "The far-left Brookings Institution is neoconservative? BS, what planet are you currently inhabiting? It certainly is not the same one the rest of us are living on."

    I live on a planet where labels are willfully deceptive and used to divide & conquer us. We've been forced to use a low-resolution, binary vernacular that doesn't capture the nuanced depth & breadth of political space. This thinking leads to outcomes that're chock-full of deluded contradictions.

    I'm well aware of what the Brookings Institute is supposed to be, but I'm judging them based on the make-up and foreign policy output of their Saban Center for ME Policy. They are neoconservative on foreign policy and are littered with (closet & full-blown) neoconservatives—Robert Kagan, Strobe Talbott, Kenneth Pollack, Justin Vaïsse. This Wikipedia entry tells me Brookings has an identity crisis: http://goo.gl/8HGsj. And does the following not sound like a memo that could've come directly from Dick Cheney's office in Castle Grayskull: "...ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression."

    Many would say the Obama administration is supposed to be "far-left" but are confused by their foreign policy. Let's face it, there are no Left & Right foreign policies; there are only degrees of Interventionism with little/no correlation to Left or Right. Interventionism has consumed both parties, and non-interventionists of all ilks are considered outcasts by the establishment.

    Neoconservatism by any other name is still a steaming pile-o-crap.

    February 7, 2012 at 12:37 p.m.

  • tafoer.

    What about Operation Ajax??? I don't hear you on that one.

    February 3, 2012 at 8:54 p.m.

  • Iran has been at war with us since November 4, 1979.

    February 3, 2012 at 7:58 p.m.

  • Bs Spotter.

    Following in Bush’s footsteps I think not, it is a lot harder to get out of war than entering into one. History can tell you that. We have heard the United States will end combat missions in Afghanistan in 2013 not in 2014. I don’t hear you on that one. From “cloud 9”, they don’t know certain harsh realities either or how the world works. Thats why I am not a liberal.

    As far as Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, I want is a congressional investigation in their writings and their desire to send thousands and millions to their death. Allow me to paraphrase a leader from the 1960’s, “if you plan to go to war you better plan to die as well.”

    Mr. Williams

    February 3, 2012 at 7:36 p.m.

  • The far-left Brookings Institution is neoconservative? BS, what planet are you currently inhabiting? It certainly is not the same one the rest of us are living on.

    February 3, 2012 at 1:01 p.m.

  • Writein,

    I didn't mean to implicate any of those as sole justifications for war. I noted them as important yet suspicious catalysts that contributed to the popularization of war. These happened after debates about going to war had already begun.

    Right or wrong, there is a strong anti-war voting bloc that feels betrayed by Democrats in general. From "cloud 9", they'll have a good view of Obama following in Bush's footsteps, only this time it'll be sold with a gentle, populist/globalist appeal instead of with brazen cowboy swagger. Then again, going to war before January 2013 would damage the false Left-Right paradigm. They better let a Republican pull the trigger to keep up appearances.

    February 3, 2012 at 11:28 a.m.

  • Bs Spotter.

    Before I go to your reply to me, allow to say this. The Lusitania incident wasn’t the reason we went into war with the Central Powers, it was the Zimmerman letter , and Black Tom/Kingland explosions.

    Yes I am anti-Military Industrial Complex, but I am also a realist. Even if we redraw from the Middle East, the problem will still exist. Such a war sooner or later would involve us. I am not looking for a fight in the Middle East because that area is hopeless and should be attending to our own affairs. Also we shouldn’t always lay blame on the United States, because Iranian leadership has a hand in this as well.

    As for the Liberal wing/ anti-war wing of Demcoratic Party, they should get off of cloud 9. Then Senator Obama did made Osama Bin Liden his primary foreign policy issue. The hyper -liberal wing much as the crazy LaRouche faction of the Party needs to go away.

    In this country, BS Spotter, we hate one other. We distrust one other, and think ill-will of one other. How in the world can we fight someone else when we can’t even get along?

    Mr. Williams

    February 2, 2012 at 10:50 p.m.

  • JD said: "The percentages are great, that if Iran does develop a weapon it will be used against Israel..."

    Considering our curious track record for justifying war (Maine, Lusitania, Tonkin, WMDs, etc), I think the percentage is far greater that we concoct/induce a reason to go to war than for Iran to detonate a nuclear device that ensures the complete annihilation of their country. They're no different than Pakistan or North Korea—they just want a big stick as an insurance policy. In Iran's case, maybe it'll prevent the US from orchestrating another coup.

    February 2, 2012 at 9:49 p.m.

  • Writein,

    Let's assume you're right about Obama. Does that mean the justification he uses for a potential war will be 100% genuine? You of all people—being an ardent doomsayer of the Military-Industrial Complex—should know there are forces beyond the President's reach or control that may not have the country's best interests in mind. So, giving Obama every possible credit, we could still be driven to war with Iran over false pretenses. I think Obama is more hawkish than most think (except those on the anti-war Left he's alienated), so the truth may fall somewhere between our extremes. I hope he is on the right side of this issue and doesn't overreact to an overt retaliation to a covert subversion, as the ominous Brookings report suggests could/should happen.

    February 2, 2012 at 9:38 p.m.

  • Bs Spotter
    .
    I highly doubt President Obama would favor war with Iran unless he is either pressured into it or Iran starts it. A war with Iran would lead to a Third World War.

    Mr. Williams

    February 2, 2012 at 7:17 p.m.

  • The percentages are great, that if Iran does develop a weapon it will be used against Israel, so they really can't be blamed for their desire to preemptively prevent their own destruction. Personally I don't believe Obama will involve the US in another war, for any reason.

    February 2, 2012 at 5:16 p.m.

  • Writein,

    I'm never surprised by this cast of clowns. There's very little doubt in my mind that we'll be cluster bombing Iran within a year, and we'll probably have this provocateur strategy to thank for it.

    February 2, 2012 at 4:33 p.m.

  • You shouldn't be suprise. You have John Hagee (Cornerstone Church) and the Isreali Lobby pushing for war in Iran.

    February 2, 2012 at 4:19 p.m.