Will the Tea Party join the War Party?

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by mohawkx

People forget the earlier manipulations of the US in Iraq. We financed and equiped Saddam to go to war against Iran in the 80s. He was one of our greatest allies in the middle east. We financed and equiped the Taliban and the predecessors of Al Qaida fighting the Russians and now look at where it got us.

Not really. We were trying to buy Saddams support in the middle east and he was playing us off against the Russians. When the Iranians started to kick his butt we upped our support so that Iran wouldn't gain too much power.

If you care to look at all of Saddams military hardware in the era you quoted you would see Kalashnikovs, MIG's, Hinds, T72's.....not exactly made in the USA. lol.

[TnHilltopper]

Originally Posted by lionking

All those reasons I stated as being given, notice it paints the U.S.A as the "good guys" saving the world and America from oppression and tyranny. I don't buy it, I have come to think for some it is actually about being dominant in the world for American interests, to be the "big dog" on the block. It is but a special interest for certain Americans.


I do realize that there are bad things and people that can happen in the world, but the notion of having to be perpetually scared and the world is full of boogeymen and that no restraint on budget for "defense" should be spared because defense is "in the constitution" doesn't fly with me.

What should have been a response to terrorists, turned into nation take overs and building, which now is being attempted to be changed into a war on a religion. The idea that muslims will take over America if we don't spend trillions of money and many lives fighting around the world is far fetched and serves the special interest of war and American supremacy military wise.

Lionking, this absolutism is something that I doubt I will ever fully understand until the day I die. It seems the bulk of this country wishes to dilute every complex and nuanced social, political, and foreign policy matter into one of two categories, good and evil. This serves two purposes, with the first being that folks get to adjoin with a crowd of fellow back patters, after all safety in the herd. The other part is that it doesn't require any thought or effort, you just point and blame. The world is then distilled down to just a few simple rules, be obedient to ones own herd, blame the other guy, and point often while citing how evil it is.

As to your point on threat, this is another area that I find human behavior to be a bit of a mystery. As you so noted, there are things that go bump in the night, there are bad people who wish us harm, but those having the desire to us harm are a threat that is grossly overstated. What is the chance of Muslim terrorist wiping America off the pages of history as say compared to America collapsing under massive debt, civil strife, or even a pandemic. Yet in those latter cases which are far more likely than the former, we state them in such a manner as drive our nation into a fear based culture. Look how much our society has changed in 9 years, how much the government has grown, how some still desire a Utopian perfect security state, its down right spooky.

Originally Posted by mohawkx

Currently, we have a thread on CD that just started. A bunch of saber rattling and lobbying for a pre emptive strike against Iran by the usual tea party front. The usual stuff. Lob a bunch of bunker busters at the Iranians and that will take care of the problem.

People forget the earlier manipulations of the US in Iraq. We financed and equiped Saddam to go to war against Iran in the 80s. He was one of our greatest allies in the middle east. We financed and equiped the Taliban and the predecessors of Al Qaida fighting the Russians and now look at where it got us.

Ahh yes, Iran, the next great boogyman. Do you remember after the story broke about the ex-generals out there selling the war on Fox, CNN, and MSNBC? How just before this when the WMDs booga booga faded and the media came out and said, "We were wrong, and we should have overstated and inadvertently used fear that let government run roughshod" (paraphrasing) Yet as soon as even places like MSNBC said this, a week later Rachel Maddow is out there trumpeting the call to engage Iran militarily as though everything they said the week before and all their actions over the early few years didn't even exist.

America has a collective attention span of a 5 year old and the media, less than that. Liberal media my eye, every one of the big three are biting at the bit for the next war to break out to drive the news cycle.

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Not really. We were trying to buy Saddams support in the middle east and he was playing us off against the Russians. When the Iranians started to kick his butt we upped our support so that Iran wouldn't gain too much power.

If you care to look at all of Saddams military hardware in the era you quoted you would see Kalashnikovs, MIG's, Hinds, T72's.....not exactly made in the USA. lol.

Actually the US did sell Iraq a fair amount of small arms, chemical and biological materials, but it also supplied satellite and covert intelligence as well as political cover in the UN. Of course the fact that it was also supplying Iran covertly via the Iran-Contra affair, it was a US war by proxy in which we facilitate the arming of two nations so they can pulverize each other. Some would even suggest this is a good idea, or at least better than having US troops in direct engagement where public support becomes an issue.

Saddam, a lying egomaniac with delusions of grandeur playing on both sides of the road, sounds like the perfect bad guy to me.

[freefall]

Maybe, they are already the full-fledged 'Party of the Stupid'.

[TnHilltopper]

Originally Posted by freefall

Maybe, they are already the full-fledged 'Party of the Stupid'.

While it may be easy for some to say this, I would remind you that among the Tea Party, there is or at least was the Ron Paul branch who have opposed our wars in the Middle East even while Bush was President. There are those who are fundamentally opposed to further expansion or even to maintain our current level of empire. So while there may be some idiots running around, I also see some folks as anti-establishment, anti-war, and simply angry that the economy sucks bog water. I wish there were more but you work with what you got.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by TnHilltopper

While it may be easy for some to say this, I would remind you that among the Tea Party, there is or at least was the Ron Paul branch who have opposed our wars in the Middle East even while Bush was President. There are those who are fundamentally opposed to further expansion or even to maintain our current level of empire. So while there may be some idiots running around, I also see some folks as anti-establishment, anti-war, and simply angry that the economy sucks bog water. I wish there were more but you work with what you got.

Yes, you have to admire the REAL anti-war people who have stuck by their convictions no matter what the political parties were telling them to do. A lot of them have become ostricized by their former friends and allies for continuing on this course after the topic was used to help win an election.

They got abused by the right and then dumped on by the left...sounds like they must be pretty smart if they have those two groups of brainless partyliners mad at them.

[kovert]

Tn, you might find this article to be of interest.

"There was a very strong push in those days for us to go into Iraq, and there was absolutely no intelligence, zero, that pointed toward the Iraqis.," he told Christiane Amanpour on ABC's 'This Week' on Sunday. "It was all Al Qaida, Osama bin Laden. And yet there was an element there that was -- that was pushing to go into Iraq at the same time."

[TnHilltopper]

Originally Posted by kovert

Tn, you might find this article to be of interest.

"There was a very strong push in those days for us to go into Iraq, and there was absolutely no intelligence, zero, that pointed toward the Iraqis.," he told Christiane Amanpour on ABC's 'This Week' on Sunday. "It was all Al Qaida, Osama bin Laden. And yet there was an element there that was -- that was pushing to go into Iraq at the same time."

Bear in mind, the two loudest voices promulgating the push for war in Iraq were Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld. In fact, Paul Wolfowitz had suggested prior that the United States skip Afghanistan all together and head straight for Iraq. They would worry about collecting evidence for their reasoning later, as once "in" people would then assume as they have, "We broke it, now we have to stay".


Now as far as the Tea Party vs the War Party, I have a great piece for you from the American Conservative Magazine about Rand Paul and the Paul wing of the Tea Party. I haven't received permission to reprint from the author yet, so here is a quote or two.

The American Conservative -- Rand Plan

But what Rand Paul has done is make the one antiwar argument with potential to resonate with more conventional conservatives: “Part of the reason we are bankrupt as a country is that we are fighting so many foreign wars and have so many military bases around the world.” Unlike the Right’s past tax revolts, the Tea Party is animated by opposition to the exorbitant level of federal spending and indebtedness. With their rejection of Republican bailouts and “compassionate conservatism,” they have turned away from the neoconservatives’ social-democratic roots. By applying their frugality to foreign policy, they could make a clean break from neoconservatism.

[kovert]

Originally Posted by TnHilltopper

Bear in mind, the two loudest voices promulgating the push for war in Iraq were Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld. In fact, Paul Wolfowitz had suggested prior that the United States skip Afghanistan all together and head straight for Iraq. They would worry about collecting evidence for their reasoning later, as once "in" people would then assume as they have, "We broke it, now we have to stay".


Now as far as the Tea Party vs the War Party, I have a great piece for you from the American Conservative Magazine about Rand Paul and the Paul wing of the Tea Party. I haven't received permission to reprint from the author yet, so here is a quote or two.

The American Conservative -- Rand Plan

I read the article Tn.

Like I have told you: if Denny, Barney and Ronnie can find a way to work together despite their ideological differences, then so should the rest of them, that is if the politicians are truly () fighting for a better America rather than a better post electoral gig as a lobbyist.

There is much I might not agree with when it comes to the Pauls but I strongly agree with them that there is just too much American blood, sweat and tears being lost propping up suicide bombers and robber oil barrons. At least on this (and who knows possibly other) issues, I would not mind standing with the Paulian clan on.