Friday, June 20, 2014

The Cluster 'You-Know-What' in Iraq, Part Two: My Reply to the Facebook Page Rand Paul 2016 Regarding Iraq

Subject: The Cluster 'You-Know-What' in Iraq, Part Two: My Reply to the Facebook Page 'Rand Paul 2016 Regarding Iraq
In my desperate attempts to maintain some measure currency with what I write and research, I wish to also pass this conversation to each of you, my friends and patrons who I hope does read and if so, you do not grow too baffled by what I sometimes attribute to be tantamount to "psychobabble." After all, I am diagnosed with both severe bipolar disorder and OCD. My grip on reality is at best, tenuous.

Assuming this is just a supporter of  Dr. Paul's Facebook page, I will make no assumptions at all as to stating if I believe he is responding or if it is a "ghost writer." And like the last dialogue with regards to United Kingdom Foreign Secretary William Hague's decision for the British to reopen its embassy in Tehran in an effort to make peace with them, or rather I state, to appease, I will allow your eyes to read and decipher your own thought.
***




Rand Paul 2016 shared a link
.
10 hours ago
George W. Bush made a big mistake by going to war in Iraq and Rand Paul wants Republicans to remember that.


Rand Paul stands up to Sean Hannity over Iraq conflict: "I would in no way shape or form put...

rare.us
Sean Hannity and Rand Paul would not get on the same page regarding the conflict in Iraq.
479 SharesLikeLike ·  · 
  • Jonathan Henderson
  • Jonathan Henderson Yes. Especially now in light of one of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapon factories with a very large stockpile of what once were classified as weapons of mass destruction (WMD). 

    With regards to domestic policies, I love his ideas for achieving greater    economic freedom by reduction in corporate and capital gains taxes while also deregulating at a record level. But in foreign policy, he cannot simply engage in isolationism since that ship was sailed from port once we fought and won during World War II. We are now the standard bearers for international economics, human rights, the primary financier for the United Nations and NATO whether for good or no, and we are still obligated to fulfill longstanding obligations in defending South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines and Germany. Unless he plans to bargain with each state to cut ties militarily and still ensure that all five are able to quickly build adequate standing armies, he has a legal and moral duty to keep true to the law and international treaties unless he wants to appear to be in the same light as President Obama: a leader who is selective about the laws he is willing to enforce.
    Like · Reply · 2 · 19 hours ago

    • Christian Alaia I couldn't even finish your comment BC right off the bat you're totally incorrect. He is not an isolationist, as so many uninformed believe. He and his father are NONINTERVENTIONISTS. Japan was in isolation when they wouldn't allow any trades or contact with the foreign world. They are in no way shape or form proposing that. You should certainly get your facts straight before you head to the polls and vote for another huge mistake of a president. Let's get this one right in 2016
      Unlike · 6 · 10 hours ago
    • Jonathan Henderson Christian, I plan to vote for Rand if he runs and is nominated. In fact, I failed to state, and I apologize for this oversight, that I want him to negotiate with those nations to dissolve our military ties in order to cut the need to continue our militarization there. I also favor leaving both the United Nations and NATO due to our serving as I stated, both organizations' primary financier and yet we are met only with scorn and derision when in the past we have rightfully set our designs for foreign agendas to fund measures for building national economies based upon free enterprise rather than socialism or simply supplying these states with large stockpiles of food and water alongside humanitarian when in fact many nations we have funded this way per the Gen. Secretary's initiatives have been confiscated by their dictators, and therefore we have for decades thrown good money but are only met by poor returns in the effort. We also need to cut bait with the Middle East, possibly even Israel, since the majority of our conflicts for over a generation have involved nations which supply our oil who either undercut us or there is a foreign aggressor who invades a favored trading partner and occupies the occupied state's oil fields. Kuwait experienced this in 1990; today, we are seeing this with Iraq, and this is because majority of the Democratic Party in Washington refuse to negotiate across the aisle or with the involved states on an agreement to open in some capacity the Keystone XL pipeline, which would buttress our already-global distinction as its largest supplier of oil as well as our classification as the number three supplier of crude oil behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. 

      With regards to NATO, Christian, the U.S. again is met with scorn and derision by various members. Britain has always been our most steadfast ally in foreign policy, and our association with them must continue if for nothing than due to our historic bond as well as the two largest states of English speaking peoples in the world. However, we have little gain by engaging in protectionist policies with regards to economics. Socialism crippled the majority of each member state's economies, and then most implemented austerity measures under pressure by Chancellor Angela Merkel. Most nations outside of Germany, Iceland and Latvia are on the brink of economic collapse as a result, none more so at risk than Spain, Portugal and Greece, which are seeing hyperinflation as well as in excess of 25% in terms of unemployment. Even France, the second largest economy within the Eurozone, is experiencing massive unemployment at 14%, yet Socialist Party President Francois Hollande is taxing the nation's wealthiest at as much as 100% of their total incomes, and the economy is worse today than under his predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy. As the Cold War has been over for a quarter century, there is no reason to remain in Western Europe as the main military presence since Britain and France have strong militaries, Italy's is sufficient, and Germany is granted the right to fully militarize by dissolving the terms of their surrender post-World War II, there are enough forces on the continent to deter a Russian threat from the East. 

      My question to you, though, Christian, is this: if he has not officially stated that he has designs of transforming America from the role of arbiter of the terms of peace or reconciliation for international disputes and foreign interventionism into one of near-absolvence from the geopolitical scene in comparison to our history, how long do you think he will withhold promoting a desire to completely engage in an virtual isolationism foreign policy? The fact he and his father were advocates of cutting ties on so many defense treaties would imply that our trade with each nation would be affected greatly since there would no longer be the matters of "if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours"? If he chooses to avoid absolute isolationism or that in any form, will he engage in a foreign policy of appeasement like Obama and most notoriously by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain following the Munich Agreement with Hitler in 1938 where when America's interests are compromised by a hostile nation or our trade partners are in conflict with our desires and goals, he simply hands over a little bit of our sovereignty until one day, we have been neutered of any remaining geopolitical superiority?
      Like · 2 · 9 hours ago · Edited
    • Ale Dukes We sold Saddam the chemicals to use against the Kurds! WTF UP!
      Like · 2 · 9 hours ago
    • Christian Alaia Honestly I can't give a good answer for that, because I don't know what would happen. For the better part of a century America has gotten involved in matters that had nothing to do with them, all to protect our "interests". I believe our interests aren't actually being protected. I think America needs a president who will take a step back from all the involvement in the Middle East in the name of the petro dollar. However I don't see that happening, as the powers that be have FAR too much to lose by doing so.
      Like · 6 hours ago
    • Jonathan Henderson Ale, Saddam manufactured the chemical weapons himself, but the CIA operatives deliberately turned a blind eye his use them, never directly informed in early 1988 when reports first became available of usage to kill in the end 20,000 Iranians. Of course, since Iraq never ratified the portion of the Geneva Protocol (or Geneva Conventions) forbidding the usage of chemical and biological agents in warfare until January 1, 2009 - well after the use of said chemicals reportedly were initiated - we were under no obligation to stop through use of force the Iraqi military from using what amounted to a differing measure of killing troops within the Iranian army, as the vast majority were still slaughtered by way of the gun and tank armaments. And since the U.S. foreign policy of the date directly opposed the Iranian government for its well-documented dossiers of their funding of terrorist cells, the same principle applied to the Soviet Union during World War II as an ally in the European war was exactly the same: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." And in the end, the primary objective was achieved under the Reagan Doctrine: the Iran/Iraq War ended in 1988 in what amounted to a draw, though it was the bloodiest conflict in the postwar era, for it was Machiavelli who stated very famous the following regarding the concept "the means justify the ends.":

      "He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation."

      - Niccolo Machiavelli, "The Prince" Ch. 15

      The information of the dates of signature (which has never been signed) and ratification by Iraq are available at this website:

      http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/States.xsp...


      Treaties and customary law
      www.icrc.org

      International humanitarian law is based on a large number of treaties, in partic... See More
      Like · Remove Preview · 5 hours ago
      • Jonathan Henderson Yes, Christian, America has become embroiled in conflicts that many will argue against and do so vehemently. Woodrow Wilson ran for reelection in 1916 that as the Great War in Europe was well into its third year, he had "kept us out of war." Of course, once the Federal Reserve was created by him that same year three years following the Sixteenth Amendment (legalizing a national progressive income tax) and the Seventeenth Amendment (U.S. Senators elected by popular vote), the first vestiges of the welfare state were launched as income taxes skyrocket quickly by near the initiation of U.S. involvement due to the recovery of the mysterious Zimmerman telegram reportedly from the Kaiser's government in Berlin to Mexico City guaranteeing Mexico to regain lost territories in exchange for aligning with Germany in aiding them in the war efforts. We were very much an isolationist state at the time; WIlson changed that, but not yet permanently as the combination of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge returned America to her historically isolationist entity. 

        Subsequently following FDR's New Deal initiatives failed to do anything more than to weaken fundamentally the domestic economy beginning in 1937, he turned his attention to foreign policy and the situations brewing in Europe. In doing so and once the U.S. was at war, he nationalized industry, mobilizing factories to mass produce U.S, military munitions and armored vehicles such as tanks. What once was a patriarchal society where men brought home the bacon while the wives stayed home, Rosie the Riveter arose as a major phenomenon as women work alongside men in factories. Unemployment was around 1%, and income taxes reached to the highest wage earners 94%. The G.I. Bill, itself a form of socialism, was passed and the Truman initiative the Fair Deal pushed until his retirement in 1953. Not coincidentally, the U.S. was fighting in Korea by 1950, and income tax rates still were at 92%. The same was truth during the presidency of LBJ, though income taxes were slashed substantially. Again, not coincidentally, the Great Society policies coincided with the escalation of the Vietnam conflict.

        During the Reagan years, the percentage of spending increases dropped, but he found himself in debt despite repetitively imploring Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment; to this day, the Left in politics and the media blame Reaganomics and the choice to spend the Soviet Union as the sole culprits. Most of his deficits he attempted to pay down were leftover interest figures from the 1970s era of stagflation. And since socialism in terms of public expenditures decreases in real terms once interest rates were increased in order to drive down the more important dangerous interest rates and burdensome confiscatory taxes were dramatically reduced to near record levels, the economy experienced its greatest period of growth and recovery, alongside unparalleled accruing of massive wealth, the welfare/warfare phenomenon resulted in no bloody, prolonged conflicts. 

        George H.W. Bush sent our troops to fight Saddam in Iraq and Kuwait in January 1991; again, there is no coincidence that to fund the conflict, Bush increased taxes at Congress' demands, and we were thrust into a mild recession. And as President Clinton also presided over a period of great and rapid growth due to GOP House of Representatives under Newt Gingrich balancing the budget and eventually manufacture a surplus, America too never fought in a major conflict aside from bombings of Iraq for alleged possession of chemical weapons and others of mass destruction. As these details were readily available prior the same which were provided to Dubya, who acted once Afghanistan was firmly in our control. And with regards to America's wars, Bush cut taxes for ten years in total while never making a budget proposal where he saw an he did not want to engage in spending increases. 

        Below is an article which should interest you regarding how the welfare/warfare cycle has nearly succeeded in the full devaluation of the global community's currency supply - which is why Europe is on the verge of a complete economic collapse and why we will meet this fate if we do not end welfare so that we do not find the need to go to war to push the initiative. 

        http://www.minyanville.com/.../welf.../7/20/2010/id/29221...


        How Welfare and Warfare Are Destroying Our Country
        www.minyanville.com

        There are no easy choices left. But unless we act now, this may be our last crisis.
        Like · Remove Preview · 22 hours ago · Edited
      • Jonathan Henderson
      Like · Remove Preview · 35 minutes ago · Edited
    • Jonathan Henderson
  • Stacy Dement I agree with Rand Paul. Those people have been fighting for centuries. Let them fight and save US money and lives.
    Like · Reply · 73 · 10 hours ago
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)