12 Responses to “Priorities”

1. jakebarnett says:

   July 9, 2009 at 1:10 am

   Andy, I think you are overstating you’re case. The comments that were made are regrettable, but you can’t completely throw the baby out with the bath water and say that no close look at our foreign policy is warranted. I don’t think you can dispute the consequences of some of our overseas interventions on International Politics. We have to be adult enough to separate the emotion from the ideology here. I think arguments like these really prevent any kind of meaningful discussions on issues.

   The saddest thing about this episode is that I don’t think anyone bothered to try and learn from it. Instead of dissecting the issue, we just retreat to our old arguments and refuse to have any kind of intelligent discourse. That’s the real tragedy in this.
2. Andy says:

   July 9, 2009 at 7:18 am

   For some reason I think the use of “babykillers” kinda unilaterally tanked any intellectual discussion before they even began.

   And let’s not forget that we live in a world far more dangerous then when our founders lived. I would be absolutely fine with an isolationist stand where all our resources stay here at home, but then we’d need to become Fort US, we’d have a completely different and limited economy, We’d have to have impregnable borders, ports, and homeland security that would cross that whole civil liberties front thus opening up further arguments so that we don’t turn into something more like Mexico where kidnappings and turf battles turned full blown street wars put the citizens at risk. Frankly I see that as a can of worms.

   Sure we can debate whether the “foreign contingency operations” were or are merited. but when one goes negative and smears the veterans and soldiers themselves they are not serious enough to debate with. When someone screams out war criminal at a State Convention then a bunch of people cheer, the whole debate got off on the wrong foot, in fact it wasn’t a debate. Minds are already made up, incorrectly in some aspects, and instead it is an emotional fight.

   You don’t debate with a toddler whether or not it is bedtime or not. And you sure can’t have a debate when one side thinks the other are just criminals and animals full of “bloodlust”. If people really come to that determination with out any trials, investigations, or face to face interaction, then there isn’t a debate sought.

   I mean look, if we did as Ron paul wants to do and bring ALL our troops home, then we’d have to have a citizenry that was capable of defending themselves and the nation at the drop of a hat. now I think it would be fun to walk around with my AR15 on a sling, but for some reason I think that would lead to a heck of a lot of other problems and after a while, it would get tiresome wondering when that bomb would go off or if I’d be carrying a bag of groceries and a newborn when a battle breaks out in the parking lot. The other alternative is that we have soldiers on every corner in case the enemy is covertly attacking.

   I just don’t see how we can possibly be the great economic power or tranquil nation we have been if we have a world climate left to the whims of the UN. Our corporations would have a global climate where they could be over run and over taken by militias, foreign governments, or our enemies. We really can’t be as great as we want to be if we decide to live in a fishbowl with no foreign trade, manufacturing, or interaction.

   So yes, the whole no foreign tip of the spear military action would be lovely, I just don’t see how it will work in the 21st century when someone can annihilate entire cities in 30 minutes flat. Everyone is anti-war, no one has “blood lust” (another term thrust out by Hanson to torpedo serious debate before it ever started), but we do need to provide some sort of guidance and enforcement for a civil world when no one else is going to do so.

   A world left in a vacuum of US presence will lead to something far worse then skirmishes and police actions. Remember what happened in the 30’s? Just imagine all the enemies of freedom, liberty, and the western world became full blown allies and began to take over their neighbors and expand?

   So again, the first salvo of this debate was not launched in a serious and intellectual manner to stimulate debate, but rather just trash the military and individuals who make it up. And frankly if someone wants to turn the GOP into that sort of group, then it is going to be a damn lonely one and a nation with both political parties intent of trashing the troops who provided the very freedom to say such things.

   Oh and another thing, the whole intent of making the platform, GOP Constitution, and what not into an enforcement arm of the Constitution is nice sounding, but not proper use of the Political group. It should endorse and elect people who will protect the Constitution, but to somehow create an internal GOP police force to strong arm politicians to vote a certain way seems a bit harsh to me. In fact it kinda sounds a little totalitarian and gestapo like.

   Do I wish that every single politician, no matter of party, would think Constitution first? Absolutely, I just think that some people’s interpretation of that document would lead to a party that cannot put forth candidates who are electable, if they can even find someone to run at all. Yes, it would be nice to do this differently, but if the GOP gets turned into a party that puts forth cookie cutter candidates, eventually it will become an irrelevant party that is really a debate society…. kinda like the Libertarian party has become.

   In order to be relevant, it must be flexible, not a windsock, but capable of having people come forward who can represent all their constituents…. whether they are veterans or not.
3. jakebarnett says:

   July 9, 2009 at 11:16 am

   I think what you present is a foreign policy of arrogance on the part of the US.

   “we do need to provide some sort of guidance and enforcement for a civil world when no one else is going to do so.”

   That statements paints the US as some kind of infallible higher power that is always looking out for the greater good and world peace, but that belies the facts. The US is generally looking out for it’s own self interests abroad, which would be fine if we weren’t doing it down the barrel of a gun, but we generally are. Throughout history, we have replaced democratically elected leaders, redrawn borders, gave intelligence and monetary support to dictators in order to overthrow another we don’t like as much, et al. The idea that we are some kind of beacon of light that represents nothing but what is good an pure in the world is just plain incorrect. Another superpower sitting inside of our borders with bases and men to protect us from ourselves would start riots and war on this soil. I don’t get why we act so surprised when other nations have the same response to us overseas. Any principled “conservative” should know that using force and occupying another man’s land in order to push your own way of life upon him is a violation of human rights, and I don’t think we would accept it if it were happening to Americans.

   Now, I’m not silly enough to say that I support the idea of pulling all our troops home from every location all around the world tomorrow, but half of them would be nice. We occupy 140 countries and spend close to a trillion dollars a year propping up what amounts to an empire overseas. We need that money here at home, and our cold war policies have to go away. Even if you want to argue the strategic value of having half a million men stationed in Asia, we can’t afford it anymore. I don’t think its naive to say that no country in its right mind would attempt to challenge us militarily, and with our technology, we could destroy cities in China from a joystick in a bunker in Colorado as it is. It just doesn’t make sense to have all these men spread across the world when they could be leading productive private lives here at home.

   I also never heard the “baby killers” comment. That’s just ridiculous.
4. Andy says:

   July 9, 2009 at 2:22 pm

   You’ve already convicted the US of acts that are debatable at best, that’s why I really don’t think you’re serious about talking about this, you want to brainwash me into loathing my own country and blaming it too.

   Luckily few people did hear ‘babykillers’. Could you imagine if that had been splashed onto the pages of a MSM newspaper?

   But as to your desire to blame the ills of the world on the US and stick your head in the sand, I’ll stick to this line of thinking, thank you.

   We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

   That comes from a better source as far as i am concerned.

   Mark Steyn nailed it out of the park today on Rush’s show at 12:15 central time today, on this very notion about the Ron paul foreign policy vs. Reality. That Paul follower went down the whole Imperial notion with the wrong guy. Steyn grew up in an Empire. He sounded like he was reading from my comments here.

   That too comes from a more reliable source.

   Don’t break the party with this insane isolationism, because if you do, lord knows the country will suffer.
5. jakebarnett says:

   July 9, 2009 at 3:21 pm

   Andy, don’t present people with two false choices and make them pick. It makes you no better than the mainstream media you loathe and attempt to expose in this blog. I refuse to choose between bankrupting our nation with foreign entanglements or being destroyed by foreign entities. We can make a third choice, and that a foreign policy of freedom, where the US practices free trade and diplomacy with any who will have us, and responds to foreign aggression with thunderous fury. I am not advocating isolationism, I am advocating non-intervention, and there is a distinction that you apparently refuse to acknowledge.

   You make the assumption that if our military isn’t a bold presence in 140 countries around the world that another Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini will rise and destroy everything we hold dear. Empires rarely fall due foreign forces, they generally economically implode. If we continue to spend a trillion dollars every year overseas, that’s exactly what will happen to us.

   Republicans cannot continue to practice cognitive dissonance when it comes to foreign policy. You can’t advocate for low taxes, reduced government spending, constitutional government, and individual liberty, and then switch hats and talk about how the world need the United States to be the world police, cost be damned. Those are two incompatible policies, the latter of which is a policy people like John Adams, Robert Taft, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater would have expected from the Statist left. Intervention in the foreign affairs of other Nations is the work of “Progressives” like Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, and even Bill Clinton. If we don’t want to end up like the Soviets did in the 1980’s, we have to stop funneling much of our men, money, and resources into foreign exploits and get our own house in order.
6. Andy says:

   July 9, 2009 at 4:24 pm

   http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/Defense-Spending-on-the-Decline-Despite-War-on-Terror.aspx

   You’re right, that 4.7% of discretionary spending is just the last straw. By god if we just scrap out all the aircraft carriers and sell our ammunition to the highest bidder, we’ll solve this deficit in no time.

   http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/Mandatory-Spending-Increased-Faster-Than-Discretionary-Spending.aspx

   OK, Ok, let’s look at the real numbers.
   http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/summary.pdf
   Hey, you may like Obama. He’s aiming to slash and burn the Defense department. Al though a trillion dollars a year spent overseas may be the biggest lie since…….. well since Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan used to scream that like twits down in Crawford.

   Happy thoughts and hugs are a fine Foreign policy. Tell you what, I’ll make you my ambassador, you go give it a try. Let me know how it works, or where to send your remains.

   Let me leave you with this before I go off and worship at the shrine I have for the military industrial complex I have up at my cabin.

   You will never see a peace dividend or tranquil global relations when you surrender the entire globe and direction of human society to the whims of those willing to take advantage of the weak. Of course, to correct your misnotion, no I don’t want to police the world, I just want to make sure the world that affect America is not solely focused at pillaging or murdering all that America has.

   http://chriscarlisle.net/ds/?p=95

   The Berserker Method of Internet Debating
   Sometimes your goal isn’t to change minds; you just want to humiliate anyone who dares hold an opinion that contradicts your own. To do this, logic and reason are cast aside and are offset by heavy doses of rhetoric, name calling, and roasting of sacred cows beloved to the opposing political faction. With the randomness of a Jackson Pollock painting, you unleash an unrelenting, breathless diatribe of partisan mockery on your opponent. Though unrefined, this method is usually reserved for issues one is passionate about and will normally scare off the casual political pundit. You should never try to reason with someone intent on using the berserker method of internet debating, nor should you listen to reason once you’ve taken the berserker stance. Due to their unwieldy debate style, only a berserker should try to debate a berserker. Rarely is anyone’s opinion changed and even more rarely is there an undisputed winner, but berserker internet debates make for hours, sometimes days of great online entertainment.

   And with that, I bid you ado.

   PS: Oh and thank you so much. I love it when “statist” comes up. Made my week. It has been a while.
7. jakebarnett says:

   July 9, 2009 at 4:55 pm

   You fail to even listen to anything I said. I’m not advocating the dismantling of the US Military. By the way, when did the DOD budget become the only money that gets spent on foreign entanglements? What about the DHS, couldn’t that be considered money spent on defense with all the money they spend on foreign intelligence gathering efforts? The Pentagon spends money outside of the DOD budget, and the Department of Energy Pays for our nuclear programs. The FBI is in the Department of Justice budget, and a large sum of their money is spend on Anti-Terror programs. About 4.5 billion of our foreign aid is spent on “Foreign Military Support”. Also, a large percentage of our national debt interest payment is spent on defense outlays via borrowing in the past. Your entire argument can be torn to shreds simply be looking more closely than face value on the federal budget. Here’s a breakdown from the federal budget in 2006, which represented a total increase of defense spending of 77% from 2001.

   National Security Outlays in Fiscal Year 2006
   (billions of dollars)

   Department of Defense
   499.4

   Department of Energy (nuclear weapons & environ. cleanup)
   16.6

   Department of State
   25.3

   Department of Veterans Affairs
   69.8

   Department of Homeland Security
   69.1

   Department of Justice (1/3 of FBI)
   1.9

   Department of the Treasury (for Military Retirement Fund)
   38.5

   National Aeronautics & Space Administration (1/2 of total)
   7.6

   Net interest attributable to past debt-financed defense outlays
   206.7

   Total
   934.9

   The holes in your logic are massive, and your ad hominem attack on me at the end was really unnecessary. If you want to call me a frothing Paulbot, at least have the courtesy to do it directly, and not behind some Internet Debating meme. If you aren’t willing to actually look at our foreign policy without espousing some jingoistic reflection on our greatness, then you’ve failed in your duties as a citizen to be a skeptic. It’s never a bad idea to hang a question mark on your beliefs.
8. Andy says:

   July 9, 2009 at 5:24 pm

   Wow. Impressive.

   Now see, this is a much better way to debate then bloodlust and baby killers.

   If you are suggesting we stop spending all of the above, then you would be an isolationist. If you think the spending above is not worth it and a waste, then we would have some huge problems in America. It would be very costly. Probably far worse in direct costs in dealing with them after the fact, and when coupled with the economic detriment from suicide bombers, kidnappings, and fear to out into the streets at night….. well, of course your way is better.

   So if you are willing to say that your foreign policy is far cheap, but comes with huge risks at domestic safety, then you’re being honest. But to hope and pray that hugs and good thoughts are the answer to world peace and fiscal sanity in government, then well, I have a slightly used bridge to sell you.

   Last part wasn’t an attack. it was supposed to be funny. You’ll have to forgive me for getting confused by the people who do sound like the stark raving idiots from Code Pink. And I am sorry, if you won’t spend money the things above, you’re anti-military and advocating a weak foreign policy. I think that would be disastrous for the GOP.

   But then again, you like to call someone a bad citizen for not agreeing with you or thinking like you do.

   Have a good weekend. Feel free to swing by the cabin to bask in the freedom and liberty provided me and my family by that military industrial complex…… Sorry, couldn’t resist.

   Oh and one more small thing before I leave.

   September 11th 2001 had a hell of a lot to do with why we do need to spend money to defend our nation and its interests. In a sense, your way has been tried. The failure of it came on that morning. Are 3,000 Americans, hundreds of billions in wealth and economic activity lost, and changing the way we live our daily lives, is that worth giving up just so we slash $1 Trillion a year?

   Oh and what about the other $3 Trillion? Why do you only see fiscal sanity in slashing/trashing the military?
9. jakebarnett says:

   July 9, 2009 at 6:08 pm

   First of all, I never trashed the men and women serving in the military. You’re putting words in my mouth by saying that. My best friend is in Delta Force deployed in Afghanistan, and he agrees with much of what I’m saying, having seen it first hand.

   Also, I’m not advocating wiping all that spending to $0. That would be dangerous and defeat the purpose of my argument. The Constitution (here we go again) allows for the defense of our borders. I am all for that. Any foreign aggression should be returned with overwhelming force, but we shouldn’t use that force to “make the world safe for democracy”. That’s a dangerous road, because it allows moral compromises that turn us into people that advocate things like spying on our own citizens and preemptive war. We could even take some of those savings and use it to expand border patrol, bolster police forces and improve our foreign intelligence gathering. I’m not an moron, nor do I see the world through rose colored glasses. But, the idea of occupying other nations to try and spread democracy flies in the face of everything this country stands for. We would never accept some “superior” force from China or other Russia occupying Charleston, SC and saying they are here to spread the virtue of their way of government or lifestyle. We believe in liberty for all, not liberty on our terms.

   September 11th did a lot of damage to this country, I have no argument with you there. But to say that it justified the kind of mess we’ve gotten ourselves into in the middle east, costing more American lives than September 11th did, I think is not a compromise I’m willing to make. We should go after those responsible, and then get out. Nation Building is not something that should be a part of our foreign policy. Revolutions happen from within, and almost never work when brought on from without. We should support liberty movements, but not use our military to do what we would never allow a foreign force to do inside our own borders.

   I also advocate spending cuts across the board. I think the federal reserve needs to go. I think our tax system should be replaced with something more like a flat tax, working towards a removal of the income tax. We don’t have the resources to continue on the trajectory we are on. According to the US Comptroller General, we have almost 75 Trillion in unfunded liabilities set to hit by 2025, and no way to fund them. The role of government needs to be redefined. I don’t think we’d disagree there at all.
10. Sam says:

    July 9, 2009 at 11:53 pm

    I always love how the anti-war folks love to throw around the term baby killer.

    Even if you believe the total count of civilian causalities blamed on US it is a drop in the bucket to the number of actual babies killed in the US.
    The latest lefty number I saw was a total of 100,000 for 8 years.

    Number of babies killed each year in the US 1,000,000.

    Now that’s a true baby killer.
11. Andy says:

    July 10, 2009 at 8:16 am

    Hanson did trash the military. I do think it is pretty dang hard to say you love the quarterback, but hate football and think it is ruining the country. But that’s probably splitting hairs.

    You know we’ll never agree on the merits of national defense, what Sep. 11th really did to this country, or whether or not it was the result of ignoring the middle east or not, or if the US retreats from the Mid East and other hot spots – if people will be slaughtered or if the meek would be resentful of the US for us abandoning them……

    Clearly you have your mind made up, and I can’t see how letting the hornets nest sitting on the most valuable commodity in the world that is run by the most brutal people in history, is smart for national security. I mean on one hand, yeah it sucks we have to do stuff there, but on the other hand, imagine if China controlled all the oil there, plus our debt. Just saying, global politics sucks and ignoring it isn’t going to make it any better. But you disagree.

    Here’s what needs to happen if this marriage is ever going to work. We need to put this aside. Sure we can chat about this, but this cannot be the main focus of you and yours. Out of all the things going on here at home right now, and the destruction to the very framework of America, why is it that you (plural) want to focus on something that is going to embolden Obama and make it even harder to stop his domestic agenda?

    National health care. Is that constitutional? Cap & Trade? Bailouts? TARP? Czars? All the stimulus spending? etc

    I’m just saying that I think if we could work on stopping what we both (hopefully) agree on, that is the domestic tyranny from taking place, maybe we could deal with that disagreement later. Or is this you’ll only help stop socialism and domestic oppression if we decide to stop supporting national security?

    And I also just don’t see how the privacy advocates can defend the nation if we let the world go to hell in a handbasket. But that’s just me. Hate DHS, surveillance, etc, but want to leave the end game up to anyone but us…… It just doesn’t seem possible or make a lick of sense. Fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here, especially since some won’t…… nevermind.

    Sorry, I’ve watched some new people spend the last few months as new GOP leaders and do absolutely nothing to move the ball forward to electing GOPers. It annoys me since that is the duty. I see some of the brand new people as simply switching from the dysfunctional party to the one that was working, but now…. well, they are proving why one party was simply a debate society or retired 3M executive awards ceremony.

    All this sort of nit picking and squabbling is a complete waste of time and energy. But I know some people feel the need to be mentally superior to all those retards who …..

    Look, if you’re a single issue anti-war person, we may as well just part company, but if we agree on the rest, why don’t we focus on stopping the National Obamanism while we still can and deal with this later?

    He’s the real threat to America right now. Not me, this lowly blogger who has no power at all.
12. jakebarnett says:

    July 10, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one Andy. I’m trying to get the point across that your foreign and domestic policies don’t jive as a consistent message, but obviously you don’t see it that way.

    The idea that you support limited government, freedom and liberty makes us in agreement on probably most domestic issues. My problem with your foreign policy argument, in short, is that you don’t support that same freedom for people abroad when their interests don’t line up with US interests.

    I think the argument that there would be resentment against the US is probably valid, but I think you can look at Vietnam post war as an example of what could happen in the middle east if we just left the situation alone. It took 13 years for the Communists to finally destroy themselves, but today Vietnam enjoys one of the most robust and western societies of any country in SE Asia. Not to mention, if you read the history of our middle east entanglements (I recommend Michael Scheuer’s Imperial Hubris), you’d see that they really do have plenty of reasons to hate us.

    I’m with you on Healthcare, Cap and Trade, and Bailouts. And I’m not going anywhere. This party is stuck with me and a lot of people who think like me, as much as that probably makes your head hurt. I’m also not a single issue person, but unlike most Republicans I meet, I’m dedicated to more detailed policy research than talk radio sound bytes. I hope you are too.

    Also, I beg you to stop taking potshots at people at the end of all your paragraphs. It makes you sound really juvenile, and it takes away from all of the good points you do make.