Are Conservatives Crazy...?

fastpat · 03-30-2006, 10:00 AM

Lew Rockwell at his finest...

Quote:

What neither side understands is that the critique they offer of the programs they do not like applies also to the programs they do like. The same state that robs you and me, ties business in knots, and wrecks the schools also does the same - and worse - to countries that the US government invades. From the point of view of the taxed, the destination of the money doesn't matter; it is all taken by coercion and all of it saps the productive capacity of society. Similarly, the state that uses military power to impose its imperial will on foreign regimes - destroying property and lives, and making endless enemies - is the one the left proposes to put in charge of our economic lives.
Read the Full Article

Moneyguy1 · 03-30-2006, 10:13 AM

Pat...

ALL extremists are crazy. By definition, extremists do not represent the majority of citizens (although they would like you to think they do!!)

fastpat · 03-30-2006, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Pat...

ALL extremists are crazy. By definition, extremists do not represent the majority of citizens (although they would like you to think they do!!)

The article doen't address extreme's within each philosophy, it addresses the mainstream in each.

FrayAdjacent911 · 03-30-2006, 10:20 AM

I think anyone that regards the US' actions as 'imperial' loses all credibility in my book.

We invaded North Africa, Italy, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany... etc etc... But we didn't keep them, did we? An empire would have.

I don't forsee Iraq becoming the 51st state.

I guess I'm glad I'm more of a Libertarian Centrist that just leans a little to the right. Bob had it right... all extremists are crazy!

fastpat · 03-30-2006, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FrayAdjacent911
I think anyone that regards the US' actions as 'imperial' loses all credibility in my book.

We invaded North Africa, Italy, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany... etc etc... But we didn't keep them, did we? An empire would have.

I don't forsee Iraq becoming the 51st state.

I guess I'm glad I'm more of a Libertarian Centrist that just leans a little to the right. Bob had it right... all extremists are crazy!

You're thinking is incorrect. Maintaining control over an area doesn't require one to claim it as one's own country. The Roman's did the same routinely during their centuries of empire.

US government foreign policy is pure imperialism.

pbs911 · pbs911's Garage

I guess all conservatives are extremists and the world has no place for them. I think Britain would agree.

Eric 951 · 03-30-2006, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pbs911
I guess all conservatives are extremists and the world has no place for them. I think Britain would agree.

Extremists and dictators--all of them. There hasn't been a good president since ever!

Flatbutt1 · 03-30-2006, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat

US government foreign policy is pure imperialism.

So rather than an ongoing occupying(SP?) imperialism, you're saying that imposing a certain set of rules or exercising a degree of fiscal influence upon a nation equates to imperialism? Intriguing thought.

So by extension if we were to "impose" democracy on a nation by forcefully deposing a dictator, then leave, we have exercised imperialism on that nation?

1967 R50/2 · 03-30-2006, 11:11 AM

Ya know... if we really wanted to read "Lew Rockwell" we would go to his site. This reposting of OP/Ed pieces is lame. And it is Op/Ed...not an article, just a spewing of opinion.

Jamie79SC · 03-30-2006, 11:13 AM

Jefferson, Washington and Franklin were as far from 'consevative' as they came at the time. Many of Jefferson's ideas would be considered wildly radical even today.

Eric 951 · 03-30-2006, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2
Ya know... if we really wanted to read "Lew Rockwell" we would go to his site. This reposting of OP/Ed pieces is lame. And it is Op/Ed...not an article, just a spewing of opinion.

HA--that is only YOUR opinion, and you are correct, IMHO.

Superman · 03-30-2006, 01:27 PM

Jamie is correct. It is either dishonesty or ignorance that leads people to point at the founding fathers as "conservative." I assume the most charitable cause, ignorance. Indeed, this entire nation is founded on principles of freedom, a decidedly liberal policy. You can pretend (or be fooled into concluding) that conservatism means freedom, but you can only do this if you don't look closely.

Pat's response to Matt is also on point. Alexander the Great did not "keep" his vanquished states. He restructured them and moved on. Nobody denies that he conquered the known world of his time, nor that he bent them to his will once defeated.

Frankly, America is not like a mugger. It acts more like an extortionist.

Netspeed · 03-30-2006, 01:34 PM

Unfortunately, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. There have been periods in our history where we have just sat back and let the world go by and then they all cried when things got out of whack.

Jamie79SC · 03-30-2006, 01:40 PM

That's the way history gets written or interpreted I guess.

I have a hard time believing that we had ANY business in WWI and any one who thinks we had nothing to do with the causes WWII just didn't study the geo-politics of the 1920s and 30s, especially in the Pacific.

I'm not a dyed in the wool isolationist, but since 1812, this country has gone out and found more trouble around the world than ever came to us.

Netspeed · 03-30-2006, 01:47 PM

From what I remember in school....Japan was pretty hell-bent on imperializing(sp?) the Orient. We tried to flex out muscles to stop it and we were rewarded with Pearl Harbor....am I wrong?

Netspeed · 03-30-2006, 01:47 PM

BTW....I agree on being isolationist...to an extent.

Jamie79SC · 03-30-2006, 01:55 PM

The US was in direct competition with Japan for access to oil, rubber, and tin. Our efforts to limit their access to these critical resources put us on an almost inevitable course toward war.

Now you can correctly argue that 1930s Japan was a brutal, imperialistic dictatorship that had evil designs on a wide swath of the Pacific, but if we had stayed in our shell, the main effect on the US would have been limited access to rubber and tin (we had plenty of oil at the time). First and foremost, it was US commercial interest that lead to our aggressive policy in the Pacific in general and toward Japan in particular.

Netspeed · 03-30-2006, 02:00 PM

What would have happened if we stayed in our shell when Hitler was moving across Europe?

Jamie79SC · 03-30-2006, 02:06 PM

The Russians would have eventually beaten him. Hitler is one of the few exceptions in my book of not going out of our way to fight a war. He was a bloody SOB with the means and desire to do terrible things to many people. At the same time, it was Europe's problem more than it was ours.

Believe it or not Hitler once thought that the US was a natural ally to Nazi Germany (perish the thought!!!)

Netspeed · 03-30-2006, 02:15 PM

I don't think the Russians would have beaten him if we weren't occupying him in the other theaters.

Why would he think we would be a natural ally?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: