dorminWS wrote:Hey, I'm not lambsting anyone. Just stating the facts as I percieve them. And I'm not defending or apologizing for the republicans. I'm just adapting them as the less objectionable alternative. The mere fact that I see the republicans as a lesser threat to liberty and conservative values than the Obama administration is hardly a ringing endorsement. It's scarcely better than saying they're better than Hitler, as far as I can see.
Fair enough. I was generalizing from last election cycle and suspect it will be the same this time around as there already has been plenty of that. Just consider all the "we have to support Romney because he's 'electable'" going on for months.
dorminWS wrote:I like a lot of what Ron Paul espouses. But I think some of it makes him unelectable, and it certainly make me unwilling to support him.
That's a discussion I've tried starting on here more than once, but it never happens. People don't like what they hear, but generally are completely unable to articulate why what he said is worse than the other candidates. For example, Iran and national defense.
National Defense
On national defense, Paul believes that the strategy of empire is going to bankrupt this country and already has in many ways. That's hardly the same thing as saying he hates the military, the intelligence community, etc. and wants to do away with them. In fact, the government agencies he wants to abolish he's been very vocal about to the point that other candidates (e.g. Perry) picked some of it up. The defense industry isn't one of them. Yes, he does object to the massive defense industry complex designed and supporting the strategy of empire, particularly since he believes the strategy which requires that is flawed. On national defense, Paul and his supporters believe that the #1 national security threat is bankrupting the entire country. If you do that, it doesn't matter what Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, etc. do because you won't be able to do a thing about it. Many of the war hawks love to say things about WW2 and how great this countries war making power was and while there is a bit of truth to that, it was only possible because of the enormous economic/industrial capacity of this country (and the very lucky position where we had the only factories not being bombed at the time). It's essential for national security that we remain an economic powerhouse and Paul wants to ensure that as much as possible by scaling back to a more sustainable position.
Paul believes in national defense, but simply wants to adopt a different strategy which won't bankrupt us pursing objectives which may have very little actual national security results. Interestingly, one of Paul's biggest support groups is actual military service members. He typically raises more money from that group than all the other candidates combined. Perhaps they know and understand today's military pros and cons a bit better than the average citizen?
Iran
Iran is a topic that the average citizen knows next to nothing about, except that their going to get nuked by them any day...or something like that. To even begin to do the topic of Iran justice, we would need a long thread in of itself. I'll try to summarize it.
Iran is an oppressive regime. Simply put, you don't oppress your people when you have the consent of the governed. There is a large distinction between the Iranian government and the Iranian people. Estimates are hard to come by, but the fact that they have to rig their elections to even get the theocracy desired puppet president elected should tell you something. However, the rhetoric the other candidates expose daily on Iran actually strengthens the Iranian government. Even in oppressive regimes your devil is better than someone else's. A lot of American's might not like what our governments been doing lately, but the surest way to get us to rally behind even Obama is to attack this country or threaten to do so. If another 9/11 were to happen and Obama took a strong stance against the attackers he'd win the next election easily. It really is simple, you may hate your government, but some external aggressor says they want to come in and bomb you back to the stone age for <insert reason here>, suddenly you have a change of heart. You want to weaken the Iranian government? Quit saber rattling and giving them the excuse they need to keep their populations priorities off of the significant local issues.
Second, Iranian culture is primarily Persian. That's a critical observation as it provides a way to interpret how the majority of Iranians think and how they respond. The Persians are a prideful people, quit insulting them because it won't do you any good.
Third, while attacking Iran may seem a sure bet to you, perhaps it's not. Unless you're willing to use preemptive nuclear strikes (which is monumentally stupid as it assures you loose in the long run), it's a bit tougher nut to crack. Most of Iran has the terrain of Afghanistan, but for guerrilla warfare they have far better tools and tactics than the Iraqis did. Remember all the news about how much more effective IEDs and such became with supposed Iranian weapons?
If you're worried about the Straights of Hormuz, don't be. Iran may be a net exporter of oil, but they import all of the derived products. Shutting down those straights would practically assure a domestic revolution by the ~80% of the population who's oppressed within months. The whole Iranian economy would grind to a halt..the rest of us would pay higher prices for awhile but that's all.
The straights are a game. Just like NK, they do it to get us to threaten them as it helps the Iranian government maintain power. Oh look! Israel and America are going to bomb your children just because we ran a military exercise (which is all they have actually done...our politicians expand that to mean they are actually going to or planning to do so very soon).
Finally, the Iranian people are in general highly westernized. Their government tries to stop it, but they have so little actual support that even they have trouble cracking down. Trade is a powerful weapon, but not in the way we are using it. The best way to make an oppressed people dispose of the oppressors is to show them how the rest of the world lives. That's exactly why every oppressive regime, from the USSR to NK to Iran to China does their darnedest to minimize or eliminate western media and information. It's an open secret that Iranians put on Christian crosses so they can purchase and consume alcohol! How is it that a extremist Muslim government allows a small minority of Christians in their country, let's them openly practice (more or less), and even sell/purchase/consume forbidden items in Islam? How is it that they look the other way when their own citizens do it too? Ah, see #1. Sure, they crack down on conversions very hard, but even then those with connections hand out bibles on the streets. Just like China, Iran wants to be powerful economically in the region, but to do so requires you open up and that is a delicate balancing act. As a side note, China has been very smart in how they have done it, particularly in using our debt against us in that trade game. Realistically it's the only reason their still in power with how developed and open China has become.
I could go on and on, but do a bit of research and then Paul's strategy starts to make a whole lot of sense.
dorminWS wrote:If you want to, go right ahead. But it would be nice if you'd try not to get your panties all in so much of a wad about contrary views.
Come on, you should know me better than that. I only get upset when people expose rhetoric and refuse to back it up with insight, analysis, and facts.
