tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1369998004636482033.post8936840486937143976..comments2023-09-01T01:25:17.121-07:00Comments on The Conservative Phrontistery : Barak Obama & Ron Paul Have The Same Foreign Policy GoalsJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11927889966152627253noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1369998004636482033.post-53761155266430116722011-04-09T20:41:54.444-07:002011-04-09T20:41:54.444-07:00What is truly naive is to believe that the morass ...What is truly naive is to believe that the morass of political interests that comprise the federal government would ever act for purely moral reasons. If you believe for a second that the President has initiated war against the Libyan state for humanitarian reasons alone, you are indeed being grossly ignorant of reality. To believe that we have the ability to perpetually fund such global policing and nation-building endeavors is also ignorant, and the truth of the matter is without undermining the legitimacy of the dollar and allowing it to inflate and national debt to pile up, we would not be able to fund such schemes. There is a limit to how far we can stretch our military power and our resources, and to continue to push these limits and press our luck with how much funny money we can print to pay for this stuff until our economy collapses is indeed itself be a threat to our national security.<br />Furthermore to advocate the unilateral action of the executive branch without the consent of Congress and a declaration of war which our Constitution mandates is to not advocate the principles of constrained, constitutionally limited, free government; but indeed to, as a logical consequence, sanction at least the authority of dictators, if not to slaughter and brutalize their citizens, at least to rule with legitimacy, no limits or constraints on their executive power required.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1369998004636482033.post-34969067390910225422011-03-22T21:15:38.031-07:002011-03-22T21:15:38.031-07:00Anonymous: Obama was or used to be an admant non-i...Anonymous: Obama was or used to be an admant non-interventionist or isolationist. He was certainly that way when he was a U.S. Senator.<br /><br />Perhaps he's become an interventionist now that he's become President and he actually has to make decisions as President. But as I stated in my article, Obama will conduct a war only if the world community agrees to it or pushes for it. He won't act unilaterally as a President to resolve a world crisis.<br /><br />Regardless, Obama's actions with Libya proves my point that its not possible to be an non-interventionist or isolationist in today's world.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11927889966152627253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1369998004636482033.post-12347440876614574312011-03-22T20:33:28.912-07:002011-03-22T20:33:28.912-07:00This is a really funny article, considering Obama ...This is a really funny article, considering Obama seems to be a pretty adamant interventionist. The wars Iraq and Afghanistan are still going on, and now we're in Libya.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1369998004636482033.post-41097009684612976602011-03-10T18:23:46.962-08:002011-03-10T18:23:46.962-08:00How would cutting red tape help citizens of anothe...How would cutting red tape help citizens of another country who are not citizens of the US be helpful in retaking the Government of Grenada?<br /><br />I didn't know the US government had red tape for people of other countries who want to overthrow their own government. <br /><br />The idea of cutting red tape to help out in foreign crisis is stupid and unrealistic. It doesn't even make sense.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11927889966152627253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1369998004636482033.post-77118653692265510862011-03-02T00:37:56.740-08:002011-03-02T00:37:56.740-08:00Interesting perspective, I never had seen the conn...Interesting perspective, I never had seen the connection until you pointed it out!<br /><br />I figured I'd comment before the usual Paultards come on here(and I say that in the most loving way possible), but I think you are missing a crucial part of Paul's ideological position. By that I mean to say, his view of the 'actual' role of government is different from Reagan's or Obama's. Whereas for some the Federal Gov't may be a tool to directly(Reagan) or indirectly(Obama) coerce others or push an agenda, Paul believes it is simply there to maximize the ability of its citizens to do what they will. <br /><br />Reagan would send US troops to overthrow Grenada in order to support democracy. Obama would send Gov't humanitarian aid to those victims of the 2010 earthquake in Haiti in order to help those in need. Paul's answer to these would be to get the red tape out of the way so that passionate supporters of freedom in Grenada could go there themselves and fight for change, and to make it as easy as possible for those who wish to help those in Haiti help, be it by donations or going there to help. In his mind, its not the Federal Government's role to make these decisions for people, or to tie up aid in BS Senatorial procedures. It's to lay a solid foundation for people to act upon. Do you still think that is a weak position to take?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com