Robert-
I enjoy reading some of your insight on military tactics, etc. and think you might be onto something but am not sure I follow you. You make reference to differing ground travel times, air flight times, and ICBM flight times, but this doesn't seem a clear argument for especially forward ground bases.

Take for example troops stationed in West Germany throughout the Cold War. The Soviets/Warsaw Pact had much more substantial ground forces and could have overrun West Germany by attacking first. US and other NATO troops stationed there could add to the defense and slow them down, but with the expectation that the ground war invasion of Germany would be a losing battle for NATO regardless. The real deterrent against such a Soviet action was the annihilation of the USSR via those missiles with 20-odd minute flight times (or nearer SLBMs with even shorter times). So why station US ground troops to primarily drain the treasury if they aren't attacked, or mean more US casualties if they are? Strategic air+naval bases for refueling, etc. may be another matter, but the flight time of missiles seems to be a supporting reason not to station ground forces in foreign nations.

I finally watched that Ron Paul video. He subscribes to the 'in response to US actions' camp concerning the 'why people attack us' question. This component I don't take offense to in the way some others here do but without looking for the other bloody important reasons (e.g. insane religious beliefs) I consider it overly simplistic and missing the big picture. His idealization of 'diplomacy' I definitely disagree with. We negotiated with Stalin and Mao because the countries they led were such large threats they couldn't be ignored or fought directly - but that didn't mean they were moral equals, or that diplomacy is the grandest idea for every little tin-pot dictator nuclear-club wannabe.

He nailed most specific examples Stossel kept asking though: Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Desert Storm were not in our self-interest and shouldn't have gotten involved in, but WWII was justified after Pearl Harbor. Genocide elsewhere is tragic but not our responsibility to solve. N Korea attacking S Korea or PRC attacking Taiwan would not be the US' responsibility to play defender, but Canada attacking Montana would be (I like his comment about Montana being able to handle that by themselves though ).

Beyond all the concretes Stossel kept asking, Paul's primary theme seemed to just be that playing global policeman is difficult, thankless, often counterproductive, and will eventually bankrupt anyone who tries it - and in all that he's spot-on.

... made me go "Hoo-ah!" and Scott's last one made me go "Ha-ha!"

I agreed with him 98% until about 3:20 in. Then the maggott comes out.

Wm

"The constitution is not a suicide pact."

YOU ARE DEAD WRONG. The constitution is ABSOLUTELY a suicide pact.

Oh, ok. Well, no it isn't.

I get your point, and I agree.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

in 1777 it took a many days on horse back to go from Boston to Philadelphia. Today a missile fired from Russia takes 20 minutes to reach Boston and it's warhead is large enough to allow the aftershock to be felt in Philadelphia.

The reason troops and material are maintained in Europe, the Middle East and Korea is that it takes longer to ship that equipment there (men and crews can arrive in a day on a 747) than it does for the enemy to overrun the allied country and then turn on the USA. Or would you rather the fight be on US soil?

The reason the Navy is based in Japan etc. is because they can more quickly respond to aggressors from forward bases. Better to sink a submarine as it leaves it's base than trying to find it when it's reached the Maritime shipping lanes or its optimal ballistic missile launching zone.

The constitution is not a suicide pact. If you don't allow wiggle room within it to allow for modern technology then you are disarming yourself - something the constitution allows no authority for.

No need to be concerned on my account! Not like I'm making foreign policy or anything! And to the contrary, I have done alot of reading on Islam in the last year. I think I have a better handle on Islam than you do.

Linz is just a colorful speaker. He is convinced that the A#1, Numero Uno issue facing the Western world is Islamofacism and the war in Iraq. And I cannot say I disagree with him. Islam spreads faster than a [insert salty, off-color analogy here].

Linz and I both happen to believe that the evidence is overwhelming that Islam is the problem, that appeasing does not work, that a large faction of those considered part of Western culture provide succor to the enemy by ignoring the positives and accentuating or fabricating the negatives of the progress of what President Bush calls the "War on Terra." I think where we part company is that Linz allows for a moderate Muslim comprising the vast majority of Muslims who are more or less live and let live, non-jihadists, and my view is much more extreme in light of the Koran and how it is interpreted and taught.

I see a larger problem as being domestic--the infiltration of Muslims into Western countries, and the use of suicidal multiculturalism to allow Muslims to set up thoroughly-Muslim enclaves in otherwise-Western countries. Add to this danger, the already-diluted culture-pool with 20 million illegal immigrants in the US, for example, and its a recipe for disaster.Our ideas are diluted, we are taught other ideas are superior to ours, and they will KILL for their ideas. Not hard to figure out where this goes.

I think Linz understands the issues perfectly, and I do not think he is misleading anyone, purposely or otherwise. I personally wouldn't call you a maggot because I do not think you have shown bad faith or evasion on the issue, and you seem open to discussing the subject. Don't take it too personally. Most people who are de facto Islam apologists ARE maggots. Except maggots aren't evil, they just eat the rotting flesh of a dead creature because its their nature. Human maggots ARE evil, because they have a means to know better.

The key, for me, is to make sure you give people the benefit of the doubt, and leave open the possibility of honest disagreement and mutual respect. Benevolence, the magic word!

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

I'm concerned you haven't sufficiently investigated the causes of Islamic terrorism.  However, I don't see the connection between removing troops from Iraq and being confused as to the roots of Islamic terrorism equating to being a maggot.  Is the accusation that he doesn't understand or that he is purposely misleading people on the issue?

--watch the other videos of his interview. Everything else the guy says makes perfect sense. EVERYTHING.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

that police actions and maintaining armies in foreign countries has no authority under the Constitution.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Ron Paul espouses the correct role of a moral government regarding invading other countries/waging war.

His application is incorrect when it applies to immediately removing troops from Iraq.

Morally, we either could have or could not have gone into Iraq. We were required to go into Afghanistan.

His analysis of WHY Islamic terrorists have attacked is ridiculous on its face.

But the basic more or less non-interventionist stance is correct. The US should not be the world's policeman.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

What exactly makes Ron Paul a saddamite maggot and a anarcho-pomowanker?

John Stossel interviewed him on his stance regarding Iraq and intervention in general.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Deza0k30sb4&feature=related

Im not sure if Stossel was doing it intentionally or not - but with his intelligent questioning he illustrates how much of a maggot Ron Paul is. Who could vote for this guy without being physically sick?

... is a Saddamite maggot. He discredits every good idea he espouses by the disgusting anarcho-pomowanker ones he promotes at the same time. A revolting creature.

it is based on a basic understanding of economics, history, and reason.  I had little hope for this country before this Summer, hopfully this will continue.

I am positive we are in a early stages of a new Renaissance--it's a matter of perspective and what one chooses to isolate from the chaos of contemporary events, developments, and ideas.

Intellectually Postmodernism is beginning to take a beating. There are some awesome artists making work now. There are several television programs that are intelligent and don't shy away from moral issues--and they handle them very well. (West Wing, MI5) Young people are quite savvy.

A interesting thought is that if you removed Michelangelo, da Vinci, and a handful of other people from the Renaissance we wouldn't have had one. So I think it is important to look at the philosophers, intellectuals, and artists and see what they are doing.

 To go along with my character, I don't think popular culture is a barometer for much. Very few things from popular culture make the history books. Many Objectivists are waiting for the history books to come first before they can tell whether they live in a good culture or not. Knock, knock keep your eyes open to the big picture.

 Cheers,

Michael

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

...Rand wasn't necessarily talking about optimism for the *now*.

Remember, this is the woman who wrote Anthem and Atlas Shrugged, which depicted Man after his fall, and Man during his fall. But both also showed his redemption.

This shiny, techno world we enjoy is no guarantee of a tidy resolution. In fact, it's an inicator that it'll get a lot messier before it gets better. But the ideas that you and I hold in our heads are surety of a better future at some point.

which ended some time ago. Looking at what changes accured in the 80's her optimisim was not entirly unfounded but I think she would look with great distane at the world we have now but she would have still being optimitic. After all the concept of freedom can't be sold pesimisticly.

And the news isn't all bad britains labour party is polling at 30% and there liberal democrats are polling at close to 20% maybe the country that commeted suicide by the vote might turn itself around.

Looks like an american reawakening might be on the cards given the enthusasum for ron paul. I don't think it will happen this election but maybe in the next 8years or so in a similar way that goldwater leed to regan may be ron pauls support can leed to a change further down the line.

I've grown very pessimistic about Rand's optimism. The West is devolving ever more quickly, now, into collectivism, and under the added hegemony of Environmentalism and Multiculturalism to bolster the strength of their arm around my neck, I both don't know how, nor do I think I will, ever be out from under the State's fetid, suffocating armpit. At least not in my lifetime will I ever be able to wash them out of my every pore.

Sorry, off to get a flannel. 

"Can this country achieve a peaceful rebirth in the forseeable future? By all precedents, it is not likely. But America is an unprecedented phenomenon. In the past, American perserverence became, on occasion, too long-bearing a patience. But when Americans turned, they turned. What may happen to the welfare state is what happened to the Prohibition Amendment.
Is there enough of the American sense of life left in the people--under constant pressure of the cultural-political efforts to obliterate it? It is impossible to tell. But those of us who hold it, must fight for it. We have no alternative: we cannot surrender this country to a zero--to men whose battle cry is mindlessness....
The philosophy we need is the conceptual equivalent of America's sense of life. To propogate it, would require the hardest intellectual battle. But isn't that a magnificent goal to fight for?"
-Don't Let It Go, PWNI

"Playboy: You are sharpley critical of the world as you see it today, and your books offer radical proposals for changing not merely the shape of society, but the very way in which most men work, think, and love. Are you optimistic about man's future?

Rand: Yes, I am optimistic. Collectivism, as an intellectual power and moral ideal, is dead. But freedom and individualism, and their political expression, capitalism, have not yet been discovered. I think men will have time to discover them. It is significant that the dying collectivist philosophy of today has produced nothing but a cult of depravity, impotence and despair. Look at modern art and literature with their image of man as helpless, mindless creature doomed to failure, frustration, and destruction. This may be the collectivists' psychological confession, but it is not an image of man. If it were, we would never have risen for the cave. But we did. Look around you and look at history. You will see achievements of man's mind. You will see man's unlimited potentiality for greatness, and the faculty that makes it possible. You will see that man is not a helpless monster by nature, but he becomes one when he discards that faculty: his mind. And if you ask me, what is greatness?--I will answer, it is the capacity to live by three fundamental values of John Galt: reason, purpose, self-esteem."
-Playboy Interview