Post by: roo_ster on November 30, 2007, 09:15:30 AM
Ron Paul meets Evelyn [John Derbyshire]
Jonah: Re: that Waugh quote you posted: If the alternative to RonPaulism is something like the French annexation of Algeria and all that followed, here's another vote for Ron.
I don't think any conservative doubts the need to fight barbarism. (Liberals probably think that it's "hurtful" to designate any people as barbarous, or that we should seek the "root causes" of barbarism, or that barbarians are actually superior to us by way of being more "authentic," or...) That still leaves us a lot of room for discussion of how to fight barbarism. Do we:
(a) Invade and occupy their territories with a view to permanent annexation, Roman style?
or
(b) Occupy strategic parts of their territories for mostly commercial purposes, while paying off local rulers to mind the hinterland, British-imperial style?
or
(c) Conduct monitory raids into their territories, killing their leaders and breaking their stuff, then withdrawing when we think they've got the point, British-gunboat style?
or
(d) Occupy their territories, put down their hostile factions, show them how to work the democracy thing, then leave when we think they've got the hang of it, George W. Bush style?
or
(e) Annihilate them, man, woman, and child, Hun/Zulu style?
or
(f) Manage them with bribes and flattery and the occasional gift of a royal princess, so long as it works, resorting to (c) if necessary, very occasionally (a) if the benefit-to-cost ratio looks irresistible, Chinese-style?
or
(g) Ignore them unless they actually send an army across your borders, relying on bigger and braver powers to deal with all other problems, Swiss style?
For a large, wealthy, and relatively self-contained power like the present-day U.S.A., (f) looks to me like the logical choice, and I suspect Ron Paul would agree. I wouldn't rule out that he's a (g) man, and this position certainly has a broad appeal to the American psyche ... but I believe Paul's smarter than that.
Jonah: Re: that Waugh quote you posted: If the alternative to RonPaulism is something like the French annexation of Algeria and all that followed, here's another vote for Ron.
I don't think any conservative doubts the need to fight barbarism. (Liberals probably think that it's "hurtful" to designate any people as barbarous, or that we should seek the "root causes" of barbarism, or that barbarians are actually superior to us by way of being more "authentic," or...) That still leaves us a lot of room for discussion of how to fight barbarism. Do we:
(a) Invade and occupy their territories with a view to permanent annexation, Roman style?
or
(b) Occupy strategic parts of their territories for mostly commercial purposes, while paying off local rulers to mind the hinterland, British-imperial style?
or
(c) Conduct monitory raids into their territories, killing their leaders and breaking their stuff, then withdrawing when we think they've got the point, British-gunboat style?
or
(d) Occupy their territories, put down their hostile factions, show them how to work the democracy thing, then leave when we think they've got the hang of it, George W. Bush style?
or
(e) Annihilate them, man, woman, and child, Hun/Zulu style?
or
(f) Manage them with bribes and flattery and the occasional gift of a royal princess, so long as it works, resorting to (c) if necessary, very occasionally (a) if the benefit-to-cost ratio looks irresistible, Chinese-style?
or
(g) Ignore them unless they actually send an army across your borders, relying on bigger and braver powers to deal with all other problems, Swiss style?
For a large, wealthy, and relatively self-contained power like the present-day U.S.A., (f) looks to me like the logical choice, and I suspect Ron Paul would agree. I wouldn't rule out that he's a (g) man, and this position certainly has a broad appeal to the American psyche ... but I believe Paul's smarter than that.
Quote from: Waugh Quote
"It is in the nature of civilization that it must be in constant conflict with barbarism. Very few empires have been the result of a deliberate ambition. They have grown, inevitably, because it has been found necessary to expand in order to preserve what is already held. The French had to annex Algiers because it was the only way in which the Mediterranean could be made safe from pirates. Empire moves in a series of 'incidents,' and these 'incidents' mean that it is impossible for a country to live in isolation. Barbarism means constant provocation."
From "We Can Applaud Italy" (1935), in The Essays, Articles and Reviews of Evelyn Waugh.
From "We Can Applaud Italy" (1935), in The Essays, Articles and Reviews of Evelyn Waugh.
FWIW, I am in favor of "C," but some of the other options may have their uses.
Post by: seeker_two on November 30, 2007, 10:51:17 AM
Post by: grampster on November 30, 2007, 12:12:07 PM
On the other hand, if America's two political parties been more concerned about the actual future of our country rather than the struggle for the power to tax and control, perhaps we'd be energy independent today. Let's see, the Arab oil boycott was in 1974 iirc. If we had gotten serious then about zeroing in what needed to be done, as it was 33 years ago, we could give a rat's behind about what any 3rd and 4th world feudal tribalist society had to say about anything.
The price of oil would still be about $15.00 a barrel and the tin pot nations that don't have anything else but oil, wouldn't have the money to be mischevious.
Post by: drewtam on November 30, 2007, 02:33:57 PM
Roman history was more like...
a, then c, then h (containment), then g, then f, then ignore them and let them over run ares all the way to North Africa; then a, then c, then h,...
Post by: Werewolf on December 01, 2007, 06:07:14 AM
Quote
(e) Annihilate them, man, woman, and child, Hun/Zulu style?
Can't argue with the finality of that. Worked for the Romans and their Carthaginian problem.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 01, 2007, 08:21:25 AM
Quote
(e) Annihilate them, man, woman, and child, Hun/Zulu style?
Can't argue with the finality of that. Worked for the Romans and their Carthaginian problem.If it wasn't for the fact that China will buy their oil now, thus perpetuating their endless funding to expand, we could back out of the entire region and let them self-destruct back to the stone age.
As it is, they do have endless funds and a vicious, expansionist agenda based on an intolerant death-cult perverted from a belief system. That's a dangerous combination. And yes, we do need to keep it in its place, which will be costly.
Just how it is.
Post by: CAnnoneer on December 10, 2007, 09:40:45 AM