I happened to catch this surfing channels and almost hacked up my coffee....just found it in print, so here you go.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/23/532376.aspx
On Meet the Press this morning, Paul called the American Civil War a mistake, criticized Ronald Reagan as a "failure," and refused to rule out a third party run.
Paul repeated his claim that Abraham Lincoln should not have started the Civil War to get rid of slavery. "Six-hundred-thousand Americans died in the senseless Civil War," he said. "No, he should not have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original tenet of the Republic," he told NBC's Tim Russert.
"Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world," Paul continued, responding to the question if America would still have slavery had there not been the Civil War. "The way I'm proposing that it should have been done is do it like the British Empire did -- you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans?... I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach."
This is a good microcasm of his world view. It assumes if the US disengages from any area, that area will no longer affect us. It's the geo-political equivalent of putting your head in the sand. Take the example above. Just buy the slaves and release them. Sure, sounds good, until you think of the whole picture. If he'd have actually cracked a book open, he'd have realized that there was a sizeable portion of the states that wouldn't be freeing anyone, and that while the Constitution supported states rights, the federal government (the Lincoln administration) decided that slavery was a stain on the nation and would be abolished. Also in the history books, we'll notice that the south seceeded from the union over it (you know, that's how they came up with their own little flag), sure we'd buy 'em and free 'em up north and the problem would be solved because that down-south area would be another country and since we're non-intervenionist, it wouldn't be our problem. Nice way to pat yourself on the back and turn a blind eye to the problem.
Slavery was phased out in every other country? I suppose you've never heard of Africa where it continues today. Was it worth 600,000 Americans? Well, it seems that was the price to resolve the issue. I guess the question is what is an American's life worth when advancing freedom? I'd say it's worth an indetermintely large amount. Should we spend it? Damn right we should.
I tried to like you. Much of what you say is correct, but that doesn't overcome the kooky bullshit that comes out of your head. Back to the green party with you; you'll fit in better with the potheads.
One thing that I find really uncooked is his desire to bring home our troops from abroad under the pretense that this would save hundreds of billions of dollars. The only way it would save these hundreds of billions of dollars is if you brought them home and then fired them. Total funding for the military in 2007 was $439 billion; however operations of those folks are only $152 billion. The only way to make his magic numbers are to start firing folks and cutting future development, you know, those things that will allow the US military to do more with less. Seems like he's got a but in his ass to cut off his nose to spite his face. Considering the one thing that really is the president's constitutional duty, to protect the United States, it seems very disconnected.
So, this all would require a change in foreign policy, and that's his desire too. The old walk softly and carry a big stick thing, only this time we're ditching the sticks and hoping walking works much more effectively...I guess it matters which way you're walking.
Dr. Paul, the US spends a boatload of money on defense, about 47% of the world's spending on the military. As a function of GDP, it's about 3.7%; not a lot higher than France. If you want to talk about spending, we peaked at 38% of GDP in 1944...something sticks in my head that was going on that year, but my feeble public school eduation fails me as to the reasoning for that huge expenditure. Seems to me, if you want to make a difference in spending there's a lot of places you can look that don't impact silly little things like national security.
I know you want to abolish the IRS; sounds good, I don't like it either. However, I would be very happy if you removed the little checkbox to send extra money to presidential candidates; I'm tired of knowing that we're wasting it on politicians such as yourself. While you're in the forms designer, drop a box on there where I can choose to send cash directly to funding our military...maybe a paypal address that'll let me contribute to buying a tank. If I've got to hold a bake sale for the military, it can only mean that government has misread the constitution, ignored the intent of the Revolution, and ignored the people.
If somehow you get elected, and God-forbid, the United States is attacked in any form or fashion, expect a revolt.
What I just don't get is that we are spending less of the people's money; sure, government isn't smaller, but it's a smaller dose of our earnings. The silly little thing about Republicans that they forget to tell people about is that they want lower taxes AND that lower taxes will generate more income to the government because the government gets paid when money moves, not when it's printed. I'm not all tied up about government spending right now, go right ahead, spend; it doesn't go to Washington to be saved. Lower my taxes more and then you guys can spend even more, I don't care. The United States is an economic engine that runs on the belief that we can always do more, always be more competitive, and there is no ceiling to achievement. Because of all this our GDP will continue to climb and while the budget as a percentage of GDP will continue to fall, abosolute dollars will also climb.
Huckabee, don't think you've gotten a pass lateley either; you're next.
We've got ourselves a messy lot. Half of the candidates for president in 2008 are pandering to the masses with regard to the wars in Iraq and Afganistan; simply put, they, in one form or another, want us out. They've even got at least one on the Republican side touting that vision, supposedly out of respect for the Constitution.
There's plenty of chaff being tossed about about how it's not in the country's best interest, we can't afford it, we've got no right, no war was declared, it's all about oil, and other attacks trying to nip at the core of reasoning that has put us in these entanglement.
Sadly, history repeats itself, but so few have learned from it. You'd believe this is a neo-con war if you listen to the news too much, but what if you actually knew a little history?
Take us back to the early 1800s to the time of Jefferson and Adams. The Barbary Wars, but let's actually start a little bit earlier. An unintended consequence of the Revolutionary war was that American shipping and trade no longer enjoyed the protection of the Royal Navy. The Revolutionary war was started over trade sanctions so it was only logical that an outcome of America's win would be America stepping onto the world stage of trade on it's own.
The north African states controlled the straigts of gibraltar and thusly access to important ports, shipping and trade routes. In order to get their cut of the pie, north african Barbarians (from the word Barbary) pirated American shipping and demanded toll and tribute in ever increasing amounts.
Let's stop here a second and discuss the American armed forces at the time. The Constitution provide for an army, but it's charter had to be renewed every 2 years; such was the framer's suspicion of a standing army. However, the navy had no such restriction. It's job was to enforce fair trade on the open seas, at the barrel of a gun if need be. This navy, although generally thought of as a bue-water navy, intended for use on the open sea, was actually more aligned with our current-day Marines. They were the long-reach of American foreign policy, equipped for not only blue-water operations, but landings and punitive actions in foreign lands. The navies of the world at the time were not deployed to fight other navies; the world was simply too large, and communication was too slow for naval adversaries to actually meet each other on the high seas, when they met, it was by happenstance.
John Adams stand on the Barbary problem was that it would be better to pay the tribute, and cheaper, then to fight, and that if we weren't prepared to fight them forever, we shouldn't fight at all. Reasonable stance and quite accurate from a pragmatic point of view. He also felt the war would be too much to bear for the American public.
While Jefferson saw the issue entirely as trade policy, the other side did not. In an effort to talk things over, Jefferson and Adams met with the amabasador to Tripoli in London in 1785. Their response to the question of piracy on American shipping in the area? Ambassador Abd Al-Rahman said "it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whomever they could find and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, as that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise." Now, granted America was a new, upstart little country, and the Barbary state-sponsored piracy wasn't new at this game; it wasn't expected we'd be a feared, or even respected, opponent.
The Federalist papers addressed the issues of the day; #24, Alexander Hamilty said without a"federal navy of respectable weight...the genius of American merchants would be stifled and lost." #41, James Madison, a federal union was necessary to guard against "the rapacious demands of pirates and barbarians."
Boy, this all sounds familar, don't it? Only back then, there was no Isreal, we weren't stationed on "hold lands", we weren't exploting, repressing, or occupying any nation; I'm pretty sure we weren't getting ahead of the game on oil knowing that we'd have SUVs in 120 years, and there was no military-industrial complex to feed. Big corporations? No, free trade was the business of the people.
Then, our opponent overplayed their hand. Tribute demands reached about 10% of the federal government's budget. The British had tried that themselves a few years back...seems nobody learns anything from history, even when the ink in the history books is barely dry.
Well, only congress gets to declar war, right? Sure, that's how it's written, and generally understood to cover all America's armed forces. Keep in mind, the President is commander in chief of the armed forces and with regard to the Navy it has standing finances outside of the Army's finances which need to be renewed every 2 years. So, to use the army to any effacacy, the Congress must authorize it's funding.
Again, we find a parallel to today. We've got a presidential candidate that claims he'll only follow the constiution and his arguement is that since Congress hasn't declared war, so we ought not be using our forces overseas. Yet, in 1801 Jefferson sent the navy to north Africa with instructions to enforce existing treaties and to punish infractions for them; Congress was not consulted. For those with only a public-school history education, Jefferson was our 3rd president. There is no argument that he did not understand the meaning of the Constitution or that there was a misinterpretation of the law; the man's signature is on the original document.
The pasha of Tripoli, Yusuf Karamanli declared war on the US in 1801 to try and squeeze more tribute payments. What he received was a naval bombardment and sinking of his personal ship. Congress, not declaring war, but in 1802 passed a measure enabling a permanent mediteranian presence to defend against the "Tripolitan Corsairs". In effect, a declaration of war...yet somehow, Congress didn't actually declare war. Interesting especially since some now read that the Constitution requires this declaration. Yet, in 1805 we had boots on the ground, led by Presley O'Bannon, going from Tripoli through the other Barbary states enforcing regime change.
That shut them up for a while, but they acted up once again. In 1815 James Madison went to Congress to ask for a permanent solution to the problem. The dey of Algiers, Omar Pasha found himself on the wrong end of American resolve when he decided to renew demands for tribute. In response, he found his fleet at the bottom of his port and his harbor filled with American warships. There would be no deal this time. Algiers was to pay compensation for making us attack them, release all hostages, and promise to be nice from now on. Madison summed it up as "It is the settled policy of Amreica that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute. The United States, while they wish for war from no nation, will buy peace from none."
The Algerian settlement was an enormous boon to trade. Early on, other countries figured out it was better to trade with America than to war with it, well, at least some did...for a while. What did America learn from all this and then subsequently seem to want to forget? That America would forever be a global player and that enforcement of trade would bring it into constant contact with those that preferred the fiefdom of tyranny.
But all this has happened before, has it not?
Rudyard Kilping (980-1016) has this to say:
IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:—
“We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!
It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:—
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:—
“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”
BBC Channel 4.
The premise is they take a bunch local white-bread folks and have them be mentored by muslims in sharia law for 3 weeks.
Interesting experiment. I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but I'm pretty sure how it's going to turn out. Just a guess, but being that Brits are cut from about the same cloth as Americans, just add the stiff upper lip thing and the royals; I'm guessing they'll give it a try, be all giddy about it for a week, the second week will be pretty quiet while they start missing their beer, and by the 3d week there'll be a rebellion.
Update: The funniest part so far, they've got a gay guy on there and they're telling him he can't hang around with women anymore and he should go hang around with guys more...no, really.
Update: Last episode, they had the group go out and envangelize for islam. It's like taking a bunch of people and saying ok, go be jehova witnesses. Then, they had circulate position to build a mosque in that little white-break town, knowing full well they locals' resistance would make them look like bigots. About what I was expecting from the BBC...just took them a long time to get 'round to it.
Funniest Part: Background...the hijab (women's head covering) is worn partly to keep other men than their husbands from looking at them. One of the chicks said that the men should be more responsible for whom they look at rather than making the women cover up.
Oddity: Can't for the life of me figure out the gay guy. He's devout now. Here's a tip buddy, stay away from everywhere they actually enforce sharia...don't waste your time on a round-trip ticket if you're going to visit.
Final thoughts: What would we all think if BBC, or ABC for that matter, did a series entitled "Make Me a Jew"?