Friday, 18 May 2007

A sane Republican!

One swallow doesn't make a summer, but this may be a straw in the wind.
Posted by at
Labels:

6 comments:

Richard W. Symonds said...

Thanks AC - great stuff !

18 May 2007 at 13:38
pela68 said...

AC: Ron Paul makes some valid points but! If USA had´nt had the interventional politic stance under WW 2 for example; then we probably would have been speaking german by now.

What would Kosovo be?
And what became of North Korea and Vietnam when USA stopped their "interventional politics" in those countrys?

I believe That Mr Ron Paul has a lot to think over when it comes to foreign politics- which also the polls shows...

I´m just not shure that the rest of the world can live in a "Jimmy Carterian" non- intervention arena, with an ever more protectionistic USA.

18 May 2007 at 13:59
anticant said...

Point taken, Pela, but there's a world of difference between principled internationalism with the backing of the UN and the unilateral 'neo-Con interventionist' path trodden by Bush abetted by Blair.

I wouldn't want the USA to retreat into the isolationism of the 1920s and early '30s - the Republican Party stance in those days: I do want it to resume its role as a lead player in the world community who is prepared to pay heed to its allies much more than has been the case in the 21st century so far.

I am old enough to remember how hard it was for Roosevelt - urged on by Churchill - to persuade the American people to enter the war, and that even after Pearl Harbour many would have preferred the USA to stick to fighting Japan and not to become embroiled in the European war.

It's not non-intervention we need - it's principled intervention, which the current disaster isn't.

18 May 2007 at 17:00
anticant said...

More on the Ron/Rudy debate at

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17736.htm

19 May 2007 at 01:32
pela68 said...

World politics gets ever more confusing the deeper you dig in to it.

Being a liberal here in Sweden means that you are on the right-hand scale of the political spectrum; while in the USA it means that you are a leftist...

I´m pro- choise, but I do not like the overly generous abortion laws they have in USA (week 40!).

I´m pro- globalism and would like to lighten up the immigration laws (but they should be based on a merit system rather than random toss of a dice system it´s based on now!)

I´m pro gay- rights, but I do not understand why it is so important to have the right to get married in a church.

I´m pro- woman rights, but I dont like main stream feminists (and ceartinly not the radical ones).

I do not like the idea of USA acting as "world police", but where would we be if they had not?

I´m largly pro "liberal" social politics, but think the liberal stance visavi international politics is childish and makes more damage than benefits.

Hmm, I could go on- but it makes my head spin...

Once again. Have a nice weekend AC!

19 May 2007 at 09:33
anticant said...

I'm with you on most of that checklist!

As a long-time gay rights campaigner, I'm perfectly satisfied with my Civil Partnership as opposed to a "wedding". The folks who agitate for the right to get "married" are simply insisting on absolute equality, in a PC sort of way.

I don't suppose they'd support a campaign to abolish single-sex public toilets!!

19 May 2007 at 09:44

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)