International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Ron Paul is right. Military adventurism is a luxury we can no longer afford
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j ... uxury-we-can-no-longer-afford/
Published: Sep 9, 2011
Author: James Delingpole
Post Date: 2011-09-09 11:53:00 by Capitalist Eric
Keywords: None
Views: 19220
Comments: 44
Ron Paul has got himself into trouble over his suggestion that if the US military stopped air con for its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, it could save the treasury a whopping $20 billion a year. He remarked in the latest Republican presidential candidate debate in the Ronald Reagan Library: It's unlikely to endear him to the rump of US right: there are an awful lot of conservative apple pie moms out there whose boys (and girls) are proudly serving right now in sweaty, lethal hell holes where dysentery is a way of life. But Congressman Paul has never held back from telling it like it is and while his suggestion may be insensitive and tasteless, the broader point he is making is absolutely spot on. Foreign military adventures are a luxury the free West can no longer afford. To put Paul's remarks into perspective, consider these shocking figures from Mark Steyn's terminally bleak new masterpiece After America. If today's abnormally low interest rates return to their 1990 to 2010 average of 5.7 per cent, then America's debt service projections for 2015 (that's less than four years away, by the way) would increase from $290 billion to $847 billion. Steyn notes: "China would be in a position to quadruple its military budget and stick US taxpayers with the bill." We can all come up with plenty of good reasons as to why the world is a healthier, happier, safer place when America (and its allies in the free West) are out there spreading democracy, keeping peace, defending freedom and so on. Unfortunately, we are moving out of the Age of Ought (as in "We ought to do this because it's the right thing to do") into the Age of Can't (as in "Sorry, but we can't ruddy afford it any more."). This is why I find myself so spectacularly uninterested in the news coming out about our glorious "victory" in Libya. That David Cameron should be preening himself about this massively wasteful, outmoded exercise in gratuitous power projection, let alone considering it to be the kind of exercise we might try again sometime soon, shows just how terrifyingly out of touch with reality the man is. Perhaps this is what happens to all politicians when they enter the bubble. They're capable of making all the right noises on the campaign trail – as Rick Perry did at the same debate when he bravely and rightly described the welfare system as a "Ponzi" scheme – but as soon as they gain office, they forget all their promises (Cameron's "Bonfire of the Quangos", anyone?) and carry on increasing government spending and borrowing like there's no tomorrow. Ron Paul is one of the few exceptions. He's not another politician. He doesn't care whom he offends. His principles are adamantine. If things are going to get as bad as I think they're going to get, we need to start taking Ron Paul and his ideas much, much more seriously.
Ron Paul. Is he "The One"? I was astonished! We are spending twenty billion dollars on air conditioning for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would take all that away, use ten billion to pay down the debt, and use the other ten toward FEMA and any other agency that we really need. And if you took that air conditioning away, those troops would come home very quickly, and I’d be happy with that.
In 2010 the US spent about $663 billion on its military; China about $78 billion. How is it financing this massive expenditure? By borrowing money, mainly from China. Within a decade the US will be spending more of the federal budget on interest payments than it does on its armed services.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 22.
#1. To: Capitalist Eric (#0)
He does make some great points, routinely. The problem however, is he then goes off on a kook rant, as he's done in the two debates.
Better know as speaking truth to power. Which truths did you find most painful?
he then goes off on a kook rant, as he's done in the two debates Better know as speaking truth to power. Which truths did you find most painful? Painful? No pain here as a result of his rants, hondo68. Sorry to disappoint.
What do you object to in his remarks, or are you just throwing the k00k spin bomb for fun?
Object? Nope, sorry, not accurate either. As I've noted on other threads since the debate, Ron Paul makes some great points. The problem is he then goes kook theory, and then those good points (audit the Fed, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan now) get blown off, even though they are 100% on the money. Great example of his kook theory's wiping out his good points is the comment about his being against a border fence because it could be used 'to keep us in'. Riiight, cause in Europe during the Cold War, EVERYBODY was hoping the wall heading EAST rotflmao.
You know, I first thought that was a little silly myself, when I first heard it several years ago, until I saw a picture of the border fence and saw that the spikes used to prevent climbing over are pointed toward the US and an old fellow I know who has since died told me that when the socialist utopia here dies, which is inevitable, the self appointed elite socialist administrators do not want 20 million worker/slaves heading back to Mexico before they could be rounded up and put into work camps. Then I thought, well that has happened in the past when socialist empires came close to collapse.
(laughing) Right. The most heavily armed population in world history is going to be held 'in' so they can't escape to wonderful....Mexico? Canada, perhaps? Ooookay.
You have a very static view of the world. Sure, Paul's comments were a little ridiculous. But, during the height of Nazi power, it would have also been ridiculous to assert that one day a wall would prevent people in one part of Germany from entering another part of Germany. Things change. Prosperous countries become insolvent (look at the PIIGS in Europe). Empires overstretch themselves and die (look at Egypt, Greece, Rome, Great Britain, the Aztecs, many, many others...). Free people's become enslaved (too many examples to site). Things change. Things always change. Your flippant, arrogant, neo-con attitude demonstrates why people don't learn from history. Paul was speaking the truth -- anything that the government does today to help us can and will be used in the future to hurt us. History demonstrates that conclusively.
somebody pissed in your wheaties today, huh? Whatever. Sorry, I don't see anyone trying to keep us 'in' using a border fence. And if you don't know the differences between today in America, and Germany in the 20's and 30's, my advice is put down the bong.
Today. What about 50 years from now? Barbwire and machine guns are a symbol. A very bad symbol. That's what Paul was correctly pointing out.
Barbwire and machine guns are a symbol. A very bad symbol. Who has suggested barb wire and machine guns? I mean in the House or Senate, btw. Nobody. As for 50 years from now....we haven't been able to secure the border in the last 30, remember?
#24. To: Badeye (#22)
(Edited)
It was an image that Ron Paul invoked to tie people to recent history. It was a good image that was completely lost on you.
Barbed wire is essential to keep diseased Mexican cattle out. There are MP5 style automatic weapons here, in special BP units and assorted alphabet agencies. The fence does keep you in, in the sense that it blocks retreat to the south and also seeking cover and concealment in that direction. Those who patrol the border often have the feeling of being trapped between the bad guys in the US and the fence, with more bad guys on the other side. West of here where there's a double fence is worse, since BP is trapped in a narrow corridor between two fences. Come on down here and get shot at, and it'll become clear how you can become trapped by the border fence.
I mean in the House or Senate, btw. Here is what was passed as law regarding fences. I do not see where it specifies barbed ware. Secure Fence Act of 2006 - Public Law 109-367
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: Badeye, *Ron Paul for President* (#1)
(Edited)
he then goes off on a kook rant, as he's done in the two debates
#5. To: hondo68 (#4)
#6. To: Badeye (#5)
Painful?
#8. To: hondo68 (#6)
What do you object to in his remarks
#10. To: Badeye, hondo68 (#8)
Great example of his kook theory's wiping out his good points is the comment about his being against a border fence because it could be used 'to keep us in'.
#11. To: eskimo (#10)
#15. To: Badeye (#11)
(Edited)
Right. The most heavily armed population in world history is going to be held 'in' so they can't escape to wonderful....Mexico?
#18. To: jwpegler (#15)
Your flippant, arrogant, neo-con attitude demonstrates why people don't learn from history.
#20. To: Badeye (#18)
Sorry, I don't see anyone trying to keep us 'in' using a border fence.
#22. To: jwpegler (#20)
Today. What about 50 years from now?
Replies to Comment # 22. Who has suggested barb wire and machine guns?
#40. To: Badeye (#22)
Who has suggested barb wire and machine guns?
#41. To: Badeye, jwpegler (#22)
(Edited)
Who has suggested barb wire and machine guns?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 22.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]