You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Trey Grayson, Rand Paul and the Conservative Mind”.
« Previous Post Right-Wing Links (April 5, 2010)
Hutaree and Homeland Security Next Post »
What say you?
"It's time to stop this nonsensical talk. Please."
You're right about that, but for the wrong reasons.
Listen, United States foreign policy has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with how we are viewed by the Arab and Muslim world. Nothing. Period. Nothing we do or do not do matters. People need to stop with that nonsense and right quick. The longer we persist in any such thinking the longer it will take us to figure out that this war is never going away.
For 1300 years the Muslims have been at war with anybody and everybody they consider "infidels". They've been at war with us in one way or another since before the ink was dry on the Constitution. Were we nation-building in 1787? Did we have bases in the "holy land" in 1860? Are you kidding me?
The libertarian take on this issue is simply uninformed, or at least it does not take into account the FACT that we are "infidels" whether we pull out of the middle east entirely, stay there for security, nation-building or whatever. It does....not....matter. Nothing we do matters. You have to understand this.
So no, Ron Paul and his son are both wrong. United States foreign policy does not influence the Muslim's view of us or their actions towards us in the slightest, nor could it. Every time Osama bin Laden or someone else uses that 'bases in the holy hand' bullshit he's playing us like a fiddle. It has nothing to do with bases in the holy land or anything else.
We are not Muslim. That is ALL that matters. That is all that matters to warrant the sword. Period.
It is with that understanding and that understanding only can one have a rational and clear-headed response to how to deal with our enemies in the middle east.
Ron hasn't gotten it yet and I don't think he ever will.
So “William F. Buckley, Russell Kirk, Robert Novak, George Will, and Pat Buchanan” are all libertarians now?
Not sure what you mean. I admit to not knowing the foreign policy/national defense stance of any of those except Buchanan, who yes, insofar as he adheres to the "step back and let the middle east fester and boil" school of international relations, is wrong.
CL, I understand where you're coming from with your distrust of government. I am right there with you on pretty much everything and you know that. But this time, your approach will get us killed and get us killed more often. It's just that simple. You know I'm not fond of HOW we've conducted this war and in fact when Obama was taking his sweet ass time deciding whether or not to give McChrystal the troops he asked for I was, for a brief moment, in the "fuck this, bring 'em home" camp.
But even then I knew for a fact that sooner or later, we'd be forced to go back, at a time and place of THEIR choosing, not ours. Constant defense at the whims of rogue "states" and holy warriors is an effort in dereliction of duty of the highest order. I for one will give the government (and my friends and neighbors doing the fighting) the benefit of the doubt because to do nothing is suicide.
That's why I linked to them, they are all against from the beginning, or changed their minds about the war. Michael Scheuer was the CIA's Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station. Not many people know more about bin Laden and al Qaeda than he does. He's also against the war. And if you know so much about Islam, you should understand why setting up Islamic States is so dangerous.
What I understand is that leaving them alone to their own devices is more dangerous. There's no question that an Islamic State is dangerous, but again the question is one of relative degrees of dangerousness.
They can have all the Sh'aria they want as far as I'm concerned, as long as it's a Sh'aria that is more or less indifferent on aggression towards us. I'm not in this for human rights, to be quite frank I couldn't care less about the people living under the law there; I'm not making the Christopher Hitchens "moral" case for the war. But if an Iraqi/Afghan coalition government decides they want Sh'aria but have no plans on screwing with us, so be it.
That's a utopian pipe dream.
"Listen, United States foreign policy has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with how we are viewed by the Arab and Muslim world. Nothing. Period. Nothing we do or do not do matters."
......
If you truly believe that, you should read "Through Our Enemies Eyes" by Michael Scheuer.
It's not a question of "belief" Chuck, it's a question of fact. I don't have to read that book, I've read the Qu'ran and know the history of Islam. I don't need anything else to tell me the reality of the situation. It has been and still is a warmongering ideology. Osama bin Laden and other "Islamic radicals" are anything but; they are the true standard bearers for how the Qu'ran commands the believers.
I'm not making any of this up. Again, it's not a belief, it's a fact.
We ignore these facts at our peril.
Wow, I knew part of that about Grayson, and that he had voted for Clinton, but not all of it. I sure hope Kentucky knows it all! I can't imagine Grayson's sort is what they want more of in the Senate.
[...] for crying out loud. . For a whole laundry list of reasons to stay clear of Trey Grayson, see the Classical Liberal who lays out the case against him quite [...]