[Rushtalk] George Will on Why Ron Paul is Right About Foreign Policy and RINO Mitt Romney is Wrong

Dennis Putnam dap1 at bellsouth.net
Sat Aug 22 12:53:35 MDT 2015


Perhaps you are not explaining your position clearly. We were talking
about an opinion that military spending is excessive compared to the
rest of the world and you said, "At the same time, I question our
willingness – and even lust – to spend money to take life...," in that
context. I took you at your word that the US, as a people, have a "lust"
for spending money for killing. So I am once again asking for an example
because historically we have been reluctant to defend ourselves, not
quick to do so as you clearly imply. If we have been more "lustful" in
the late 30's, millions of lives may well have been saved and WW II
avoided. If we had been more "lustful" thousands of lives may have been
saved in Korea. If we had been more "lustful" millions of lives may have
been saved in Vietnam and Thailand. But were we reluctant instead and we
are now heading down the same path today with ISIS, Hamas, Hezbola, et.
al. A major world crisis is on the horizon in the middle east because we
don't have a "lust" for spending money to kill.

On 8/22/2015 12:27 PM, Stephen A. Frye wrote:
>
> I am not (nor have I ever) claimed that self-defense is wrong.  You
> are perfectly manifesting the “all or nothing” philosophy.  Because I
> don’t always choose killing as the first response, you draw the
> erroneous (and perfect example of the non sequitur) conclusion that I
> am against self-defense.  That is a quantum leap in flawed reasoning
> that is unsupportable.
>
>  
>
> And what is hypocritical about being against “all or nothing”
> philosophies?  Little (if anything) in life is so black and white.  Oh
> I am sure you will come up with something, but I am also quite sure
> you clearly understand the point I am making.  Once again you are
> arguing for the sake of the argument; I won’t do that.
>
>  
>
> *From:*rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com]
> *On Behalf Of *Dennis Putnam
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 22, 2015 8:52 AM
> *To:* rushtalk at csdco.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Rushtalk] George Will on Why Ron Paul is Right About
> Foreign Policy and RINO Mitt Romney is Wrong
>
>  
>
> Who said anything about "always?" Self-defense means protecting one's
> self or another from injury or bodily harm. The same concept applies
> to the USA. One is not "always" in such danger.Yet here you are
> hypocritically saying you "simply don’t agree with the all or nothing
> philosophies." Although in this case it has been decades but that is
> because we are unwilling to do what it takes to eradicate the threat.
> Hello Neville Chamberlain. No wonder you "won't bite", you have no
> cognizant way to explain your assertion that self-defense is wrong so
> you deflect and intentionally misunderstand.
>
> On 8/22/2015 10:35 AM, Stephen A. Frye wrote:
>
>     Sorry, won’t bite.  One example (or even several) does not
>     extrapolate to “it’s always right”, any more than abuse or misuse
>     of a benefit or gift by some extrapolates to “it’s all wrong”. 
>     And I will step out on a limb here – vowing to kill us does not
>     justify killing them in advance.  That would never end.  I simply
>     don’t agree with the all or nothing philosophies.
>
>      
>
>     *From:*rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com
>     <mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com>
>     [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] *On Behalf Of *Dennis Putnam
>     *Sent:* Saturday, August 22, 2015 5:38 AM
>     *To:* rushtalk at csdco.com <mailto:rushtalk at csdco.com>
>     *Subject:* Re: [Rushtalk] George Will on Why Ron Paul is Right
>     About Foreign Policy and RINO Mitt Romney is Wrong
>
>      
>
>     Hmm. A country that has vowed to kill us all is called a "stretch"
>     when I use the term self-defense. You reinforce my assertion of
>     convoluted logic.
>
>     On 8/20/2015 6:04 PM, Stephen A. Frye wrote:
>
>         We rationalize a lot with the stretch of “self defense”.  And
>         yes, I choose the word ”stretch” both carefully and
>         deliberately.  I won’t go there.  It’s an argument neither of
>         us can win.  And again, the question manifests the philosophy
>         of all or nothing.  I believe that such a view is an error.
>
>          
>
>         *From:*rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com
>         <mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com>
>         [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] *On Behalf Of *Dennis Putnam
>         *Sent:* Thursday, August 20, 2015 2:48 PM
>         *To:* rushtalk at csdco.com <mailto:rushtalk at csdco.com>
>         *Subject:* Re: [Rushtalk] George Will on Why Ron Paul is Right
>         About Foreign Policy and RINO Mitt Romney is Wrong
>
>          
>
>         Convoluted logic at best. You seem to be making a moral
>         equivalency between self defense and acts of murder. Where are
>         we showing willingness to kill other than in self defense?
>
>         On 8/20/2015 5:20 PM, Stephen A. Frye wrote:
>
>             I agree with the underlying principle of your post.  At
>             the same time, I question our willingness – and even lust
>             – to spend money to take life, but balk at spending to
>             save it or better it.  We’re an odd species.  We fight
>             very hard for our right to kill each other.
>
>              
>
>             *From:*rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com
>             <mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com>
>             [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] *On Behalf Of *Steven Laib
>             *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2015 5:54 AM
>             *To:* rushtalk at csdco.com <mailto:rushtalk at csdco.com>
>             *Subject:* Re: [Rushtalk] George Will on Why Ron Paul is
>             Right About Foreign Policy and RINO Mitt Romney is Wrong
>
>              
>
>             The problem is that if we weren't spending horrendous
>             amounts of money on social welfare then the budget would
>             not be anywhere near as troubled by the military spending.
>             IMO, Military spending is constitutionally mandated. 
>             Social welfare is not and may not even be permitted. 
>
>             Just my two cents.
>
>             SDL
>
>             On 8/17/15 11:00 PM, Carl Spitzer wrote:
>
>
>                  
>                 *George Will on Why Ron Paul is Right About Foreign
>                 Policy and Mitt Romney is Wrong*
>                 /Writes/George Will:
>
>                 Few things so embitter a nation as squandered valor,
>                 hence Americans, with much valor spent there, want
>                 Iraq to master its fissures. But with America in the
>                 second decade of its longest war, the probable
>                 Republican nominee is promising to extend it indefinitely.
>
>                 Mitt Romney opposes negotiations with the Taliban
>                 while they “are killing our soldiers.” Which means: No
>                 negotiations until the war ends, when there will be
>                 nothing about which to negotiate…
>
>                 *The U.S. defense budget is about 43% of the world’s
>                 total military spending ­ more than the combined
>                 defense spending of the next 17 nations*, many of
>                 which are U.S. allies. *Are Republicans really going
>                 to warn voters that America will be imperiled if the
>                 defense budget is cut 8% from projections over the
>                 next decade? In 2017, defense spending would still be
>                 more than that of the next 10 countries.*
>
>                 *Do Republicans think it is premature to withdraw up
>                 to 7,000 troops from Europe two decades after the
>                 Soviet Union’s death?*About 73,000 will remain, most
>                 of them in prosperous, pacific, largely unarmed and
>                 utterly unthreatened Germany. Why do so many remain?
>
>                 *Since 2001, the United States has waged war in three
>                 nations, and some Republicans appear ready to bring
>                 the total to five, adding Iran and Syria.*(/The Weekly
>                 Standard/, of neoconservative bent, regrets that Obama
>                 “is reluctant to intervene to oust Iran’s closest
>                 ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.”) *GOP critics
>                 say Obama’s proposed defense cuts will limit America’s
>                 ability to engage in troop-intensive nation-building.
>                 Most Americans probably say: Good…*
>
>                 Romney says: “It is unacceptable for Iran to have a
>                 nuclear weapon…” (Leon) Panetta says Iran acquiring
>                 nuclear weapons is “unacceptable” and “a red line for
>                 us” and if “we get intelligence that they are
>                 proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon, then we
>                 will take whatever steps necessary to stop it.”
>
>                 *What, then, is the difference between Romney and
>                 Obama regarding Iran?*
>
>                 *Osama bin Laden and many other “high-value targets”
>                 are dead, the drone war is being waged more vigorously
>                 than ever, and Guantanamo is still open,*so
>                 Republicans can hardly say Obama has implemented
>                 dramatic and dangerous discontinuities regarding
>                 counterterrorism. Obama says that even with his
>                 proposed cuts, the defense budget would increase at
>                 about the rate of inflation through the next decade.
>
>                 *Republicans who think America is being endangered by
>                 “appeasement” and military parsimony have worked that
>                 pedal on their organ quite enough.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>
>                 Rushtalk mailing list
>
>                 Rushtalk at csdco.com <mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>
>
>                 http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>
>              
>
>
>
>
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>
>             Rushtalk mailing list
>
>             Rushtalk at csdco.com <mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>
>
>             http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>
>          
>
>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         Rushtalk mailing list
>
>         Rushtalk at csdco.com <mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>
>
>         http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>
>      
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Rushtalk mailing list
>
>     Rushtalk at csdco.com <mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>
>
>     http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rushtalk mailing list
> Rushtalk at csdco.com
> http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20150822/ba886d49/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20150822/ba886d49/attachment-0001.bin 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list