PDA

View Full Version : Pat Buchanan is a non-interventionist; Ron Paul is a neo-isolationist.


patteeu
12-28-2007, 06:25 PM
Pat Buchanan was interviewed on today's Michael Savage program. Before getting to the interview, Savage called Paul an "idiot" and various other colorful names for suggesting that we ought to get our noses out of Pakistani business and let them sort out their problems on their own. Buchanan, by contrast, recognizes that the US has "vital national interests" in Pakistan and recommends that we back Musharraf as the "only game in town". He thinks we need to discretely and forcefully tell Musharraf that he needs to move hard against the islamists in his tribal regions and he says the US should insist on supporting his efforts with covert special ops rather than overt military incursions to allow the Pakistani people to maintain their pride.

I think Buchanan makes a lot of sense. Paul, not so much.

patteeu
12-28-2007, 06:30 PM
And when Savage described Paul's statements on the subject to Buchanan, it sounded to me like Buchanan was calling Paul's position "ideological nonsense" although it's possible he was aiming that at Savage's statement to the effect that in his opinion we need to conduct a significant military incursion into the border region of Pakistan to hunt down al Qaeda.

Taco John
12-28-2007, 06:40 PM
I don't see how Pat's position equates to non-interventionism. He clearly states that we need to intervene in the situation.

But honestly, I'm not too interested in discussing this point of view. At this point, anyone interested in slandering Paul as an isolationist (I'm dropping the penchief-esque overuse of the word "neo") is going to do so regardless of the facts.

There's another point of view on this, and more Americans are becoming aware of it. It's only a matter of time before the American Tradition wins out.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jfHc7h2CdiI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jfHc7h2CdiI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

go bowe
12-28-2007, 07:04 PM
He thinks we need to discretely and forcefully tell Musharraf that he needs to move hard against the islamists in his tribal regions and he says the US should insist on supporting his efforts with covert special ops rather than overt military incursions to allow the Pakistani people to maintain their pride...i see this a lot lately...

i think we may be a little unrealistic wrt what mushysheriff can and cannot do...

he did try go into the tribal areas and from what i can tell, got his ass kicked...

so he struck a deal with the extremists, agreeing in part to stop attacking the extremists in the tribal areas...

so, i don't think his inability to control the tribal areas is from a lack of trying...

he's just got too many jihadists sprinkled through the security services and the army to be able to rely on them to actually try to eradicate the extremist elements...

i expect that mushysheriff will be the next pakistani politician to get killed...

and who knows how radical pakistan will become if extremists get any political power, through elections or assassination...

it's just not a good situation for mushysheriff or for us...

patteeu
12-28-2007, 07:04 PM
I don't see how Pat's position equates to non-interventionism. He clearly states that we need to intervene in the situation.

But honestly, I'm not too interested in discussing this point of view. At this point, anyone interested in slandering Paul as an isolationist (I'm dropping the penchief-esque overuse of the word "neo") is going to do so regardless of the facts.

He called himself a non-interventionist. Haven't you and the other Paul pushers assured me that Ron Paul would have intervened in Afghanistan after 9/11 to hunt down al Qaeda? Why do you call Paul a non-interventionist if he would have intervened in that situation? The answer is that we all agree that America should act when it's in our vital national interests. It's just a matter of how narrowly we define those interests. Paul's definition is far too narrow for most people. I'd say unreasonably and dangerously narrow.

patteeu
12-28-2007, 07:11 PM
i see this a lot lately...

i think we may be a little unrealistic wrt what mushysheriff can and cannot do...

he did try go into the tribal areas and from what i can tell, got his ass kicked...

so he struck a deal with the extremists, agreeing in part to stop attacking the extremists in the tribal areas...

so, i don't think his inability to control the tribal areas is from a lack of trying...

he's just got too many jihadists sprinkled through the security services and the army to be able to rely on them to actually try to eradicate the extremist elements...

i expect that mushysheriff will be the next pakistani politician to get killed...

and who knows how radical pakistan will become if extremists get any political power, through elections or assassination...

it's just not a good situation for mushysheriff or for us...

He's actually had some reasonable success (http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/2007-12-10-voa5.cfm) in the Swat area recently.

I agree that he has some issues, more in the intelligence services than the army from what I gather, and there seem to be conflicting assessments about whether he has the ability to do more or not.

But I agree that it's not a good situation for us or musharraf at this point. OTOH, they say it's always darkest before the dawn so ... :shrug:

I think it's notable though that Buchanan's form of non-intervention, which was considered pretty radical a few years ago, is not nearly as extreme as Ron Paul's.

Taco John
12-28-2007, 07:19 PM
He called himself a non-interventionist. Haven't you and the other Paul pushers assured me that Ron Paul would have intervened in Afghanistan after 9/11 to hunt down al Qaeda? Why do you call Paul a non-interventionist if he would have intervened in that situation?

*yawn* :ZZZ:

The answer is that we all agree that America should act when it's in our vital national interests. It's just a matter of how narrowly we define those interests. Paul's definition is far too narrow for most people. I'd say unreasonably and dangerously narrow.

Of course you would. You're in favor of neverending war for the sake of peace. A war monger is never going to spill enough blood to satisfy his demands for peace. There will never be enough dead American heros to content you point of view. ...Never enough kids left without fathers... Never enough soldiers sacrificing life and limb. There is always a chance to intervene for "our security." Always an opportunity to spill more blood.

But Ron Paul is the dangerous one...

Got it.

patteeu
12-28-2007, 07:21 PM
Of course you would. You're in favor of neverending war for the sake of peace. A war monger is never going to spill enough blood to satisfy his demands for peace. There will never be enough dead American heros to content you point of view. There is always a chance to intervene for "our security." Always an opportunity to spill more blood.

Have you been reading my diary?

SNR
12-28-2007, 07:43 PM
Have you been reading my diary?I got bored after the part about burning the elderly and mentally-handicapped as an alternative fuel source.

But no, seriously... why do you think Paul's plan wouldn't work? It seems to make perfect sense to me.

patteeu
12-28-2007, 08:56 PM
I got bored after the part about burning the elderly and mentally-handicapped as an alternative fuel source.

But no, seriously... why do you think Paul's plan wouldn't work? It seems to make perfect sense to me.

Work in what way? By standing by while islamists take control of a nuclear arsenal? I'm not saying that there's any immediate danger of that happening, but if we wash our hands of the situation, it could become a reality unless India decides to go to war to prevent it which would be equally unpredictable.

I don't think Ron Paul's philosophy takes into account human nature. Specifically, the might-makes-right aspect of human nature. If we take a vacation from history, the mightiest of the players who remain will advance their agendas and I don't anticipate that their agendas will have the US' best interests at heart.

Taco John
12-28-2007, 09:54 PM
Work in what way? By standing by while islamists take control of a nuclear arsenal? I'm not saying that there's any immediate danger of that happening, but if we wash our hands of the situation, it could become a reality unless India decides to go to war to prevent it which would be equally unpredictable.

This is India's problem, and probably Russia. Let them worry about it. We've got our hands full.


I don't think Ron Paul's philosophy takes into account human nature. Specifically, the might-makes-right aspect of human nature. If we take a vacation from history, the mightiest of the players who remain will advance their agendas and I don't anticipate that their agendas will have the US' best interests at heart.



Ron Paul's philosophy exactly takes in account for human nature, which is why it works - and why the founders advised it in the first place. People are naturally going to want to determine their own destiny without influence of outsiders. The idea that our involvement is going to do anything but create more terroism is naive at best. Dangerous at worst.

Your laughable "might-makes-right" statement means exactly dick considering that's pretty much what you're advocating.

patteeu
12-28-2007, 10:43 PM
Ron Paul's philosophy exactly takes in account for human nature, which is why it works - and why the founders advised it in the first place. People are naturally going to want to determine their own destiny without influence of outsiders. The idea that our involvement is going to do anything but create more terroism is naive at best. Dangerous at worst.

Your laughable "might-makes-right" statement means exactly dick considering that's pretty much what you're advocating.

That *is* exactly what I'm advocating. I'm advocating that we accept human nature and act in our own interests instead of dreaming some utopian pipe dream.

You might recall that our founders were aided in their scheme to eject their British overlords by the interventionists in France. It worked out pretty well for us.

BucEyedPea
12-28-2007, 11:23 PM
He thinks we need to discretely and forcefully tell Musharraf that he needs to move hard against the islamists in his tribal regions and he says the US should insist on supporting his efforts with covert special ops rather than overt military incursions to allow the Pakistani people to maintain their pride.
I didn't hear the program to know how Savage may have selectively used some or all of Paul's views or how you took the broadcast yourself. However, this line here, your choice of words like "discrete" and the use of "covert special ops" rather than "overt military" incursions is something that Paul has said he would rather use...aka not be so in their face about it. He did support Afghanistan for this reason, and to do it more in this manner, in order to get AQ. So Paul supported covert ops and not to remain as an occupying forces as well. As well as rewards.

Don't get me wrong, this one is a difficult not so B&W situation for us. I don't have all the data on this either. However,I suspect being involved earlier
may not have been a right move or backing Mushy too much. I just don't know. There is other info I'm sure. So I don't have a firm opinion on this yet. Just pointing out some things Paul has also said.

I was invited to go over there in Fall 2002 on an education trip, but declined. My colleague who did go, told me that the people there were very angry and upset over just the bombing of Afghanistan and did not understand why we were doing it. Many of these people were educated and the wealthy as well. I'm sure it's worse now. Perhaps, we should have done the Afghanistan mission a different way...but most definitely not have remained as an occupation force with bases that follow where that pipeline is being built. Things like this don't help either.

BucEyedPea
12-28-2007, 11:26 PM
You might recall that our founders were aided in their scheme to eject their British overlords by the interventionists in France. It worked out pretty well for us.
yet, they refused to help the French in their revolution, including Lafayette. They argued over it vehemently. In the end they abstained.

Taco John
12-29-2007, 03:37 AM
You might recall that our founders were aided in their scheme to eject their British overlords by the interventionists in France. It worked out pretty well for us.


You ignored the most operative word in your post.

NewChief
12-29-2007, 08:24 AM
There's another point of view on this, and more Americans are becoming aware of it. It's only a matter of time before the American Tradition wins out.


It's lines like this that make me become increasingly disturbed by TJ's Paul support. In all honesty, I like RP as a candidate. I like him shaking up the establishment. I like a lot of his ideas on liberty. I think he's a "good guy." That being said, TJ sounds like a total religious zealot a lot of the time when he talks about Paul. He tries to couch all of his arguments in this sort of emotionally loaded language that connotes RP as a savior of America.

patteeu
12-29-2007, 08:25 AM
yet, they refused to help the French in their revolution, including Lafayette. They argued over it vehemently. In the end they abstained.

You're talking about the wrong war.

patteeu
12-29-2007, 08:26 AM
You ignored the most operative word in your post.

I don't know what point you're trying to make, but my point was that we didn't get pissed off at the French for intervening in our affairs. We were pretty receptive to the intervention, in fact. Your curious take on human nature wouldn't predict that.

BucEyedPea
12-29-2007, 12:09 PM
You're talking about the wrong war.
:lame:

No I'm not. I was talking about how those who intervened on our behalf in the same war were not honored back similarly by those same Founders when they asked for help. They stuck to what they believed in pretty much.

patteeu
12-29-2007, 12:45 PM
No I'm not. I was talking about how those who intervened on our behalf in the same war were not honored back similarly by those same Founders when they asked for help. They stuck to what they believed in pretty much.

Which has nothing to do with the discussion that was taking place.

BucEyedPea
12-29-2007, 12:57 PM
Which has nothing to do with the discussion that was taking place.
I disagree. It has everything to do with interventions. Another angle. You just dismiss it because it shows another side on those Founder's pov who you were supporting and you can't refute it.

patteeu
12-29-2007, 01:18 PM
I disagree. It has everything to do with interventions. Another angle. You just dismiss it because it shows another side on those Founder's pov who you were supporting and you can't refute it.

I don't think you really understand the point that was being made. The issue has to do with human nature; specifically of those who are experiencing the intervention. I agree with the general Paul dogma that in some cases, the intervention will be resented, but the point I was making is that in other cases the intervention is appreciated as it was by our founders in our own Revolution. Your non sequitur about how our founders stuck to their non-interventionist guns has nothing to do with that. There's no reason for me to refute it because it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

On a related note, sometimes the lack of intervention can create blowback. In Iraq, some of the troubles we've experienced there from the Shiites stems from a (justified in my view) perception that we let them down when they rose up against Saddam following Gulf War I. In Pakistan, some of the anti-American resentment that you heard about back in 2002 and that continues today comes from the idea that we turned our back on them in favor of their archenemies in India after the Soviets were ejected from Afghanistan.