Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
ron paul.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 919279" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>On the one hand I can understand and appreciate where you are coming from, use to be there myself and then some. Coming from a Misean economic position as it relates to human action or praxeology, typically speaking when markets are free and individual and property rights respected allowing for self determination, these same actors will choose a peaceful means to co-exist because the larger costs of conflict are economically self defeating. Even to remove productive individuals from the marketplace to then place them on the battlefield inflicts a counter-productive cost on an economy and either that economy can somehow find an ability to not only make up the productive difference in lost productive manpower but then somehow increase capacity as economic means are shifted towards the needs of the state in prosecuting a war. Typically speaking, the Keynesian debt model is invoked and then over the longhaul, all citizens must labor even more in order to maintain present needs and then the debt service over time. Also apply Bastiat's Broken Window fallacy to the action of war.</p><p></p><p>One other thing in relation to Paul's foreign policy ideas, the big thing at the moment seems to be Iran and it's alleged capacity for nuclear arms. The allegations are that Iran is on the verge of a nuclear bomb but this is just not the facts on the ground as I see it. But for the sake of discussion, let's say right now at this very moment they have enough 90% enriched uranium for a low yield nuke. Can they launch a missile capable of carrying a nuke payload to US shores? No so mark that off as a threat. Can they load it up on a plane and reach US shores? No, no large capacity bombers or refueling ability so eliminate that. Could they sneak it in by other means? They could but consider the consequences. They pop their one nuke somewhere here in the US and does anyone here doubt for one second regardless who the President is that Iran will see a new sunrise the next day? Don't you think the Iranians know this? Everyone shakes in their boots at Ahmadinejad and he's great at scaring little ole ladies like Moreluck but he a pandering politician not unlike some of the one we have here. Talk big and bad to the home folks, kick some sand but on the big stage he's not much. Why else is news from outside the country filtered so much so that he can maintain illusions? Right now at this very moment there is growing decent within Iran against Ahmadinejad and even the revolutionary cleric council. But our current warmongering against Iran is driven by other interests and I'mabout to touch on that in the Iran thread so if interested, read it there.</p><p></p><p>The reality of the Iranian nuke threat is not in it's fact but rather in it's potential. They are producing 20% enriched uranium but even that production is problematic. On page 14 of the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20110303185609/http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20100202_testimony.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #ff0000">Feb. 2010' CIA Threat Assessment to the US Senate</span></a>, the CIA re-affirmed the 2007' NIE assessment that there exists only the potential for weapons grade production and not that there is. Also found the Arms Control Association an interesting resource for information to further research. A report from a few days ago I found of interest. The underground facility at Qom does bare watching but in light of threats by various nationstates to bomb Iran's nuclear capacity and considering that Iran is a Shi'a Islamic nation surrounded entirely by Sunni nationstates, is it any wonder they are a bit paranoid these days? What would you do if you were Iran and wanted to preserve your self determination as a nationstate? You might build your stuff underground too so the Qom facility considering the eternal threat is not entirely irrational. Drilling down as best I can, I'm just not convinced that Iran is the threat it's being portrayed as being. To borrow the CIA term blowback and as well covered by the late Chalmers Johnson in his book Blowback, our current efforts stand to only generate this kind of negative outcome. And to go one step further, not unlike our efforts to provoke North Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin, I'm not convinced the current situation are efforts to do the very same thing. Again see my response in the Iran thread I will shortly post.</p><p></p><p>The greater question that must be asked, are individual and property rights as well as market rights something we in the west, specifically America only enjoy or is this an ideal that all across the planet should enjoy? What about the right of self defense? Hmmm, how do you declare your right to defend yourself and the right to bear arms if you deny the same for others? This would mean the right of self defense and even the right to life, liberty and property are not natural rights and instead are civil rights only and can be regulated in any manner including taking away that right from individuals, communities and yes even nationstates. I never said real freedom and liberty was easy or without taking some risks.</p><p></p><p>Ron speaks a bit on where he's coming from when speaking about our actions in Pakistan.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 919279, member: 2189"] On the one hand I can understand and appreciate where you are coming from, use to be there myself and then some. Coming from a Misean economic position as it relates to human action or praxeology, typically speaking when markets are free and individual and property rights respected allowing for self determination, these same actors will choose a peaceful means to co-exist because the larger costs of conflict are economically self defeating. Even to remove productive individuals from the marketplace to then place them on the battlefield inflicts a counter-productive cost on an economy and either that economy can somehow find an ability to not only make up the productive difference in lost productive manpower but then somehow increase capacity as economic means are shifted towards the needs of the state in prosecuting a war. Typically speaking, the Keynesian debt model is invoked and then over the longhaul, all citizens must labor even more in order to maintain present needs and then the debt service over time. Also apply Bastiat's Broken Window fallacy to the action of war. One other thing in relation to Paul's foreign policy ideas, the big thing at the moment seems to be Iran and it's alleged capacity for nuclear arms. The allegations are that Iran is on the verge of a nuclear bomb but this is just not the facts on the ground as I see it. But for the sake of discussion, let's say right now at this very moment they have enough 90% enriched uranium for a low yield nuke. Can they launch a missile capable of carrying a nuke payload to US shores? No so mark that off as a threat. Can they load it up on a plane and reach US shores? No, no large capacity bombers or refueling ability so eliminate that. Could they sneak it in by other means? They could but consider the consequences. They pop their one nuke somewhere here in the US and does anyone here doubt for one second regardless who the President is that Iran will see a new sunrise the next day? Don't you think the Iranians know this? Everyone shakes in their boots at Ahmadinejad and he's great at scaring little ole ladies like Moreluck but he a pandering politician not unlike some of the one we have here. Talk big and bad to the home folks, kick some sand but on the big stage he's not much. Why else is news from outside the country filtered so much so that he can maintain illusions? Right now at this very moment there is growing decent within Iran against Ahmadinejad and even the revolutionary cleric council. But our current warmongering against Iran is driven by other interests and I'mabout to touch on that in the Iran thread so if interested, read it there. The reality of the Iranian nuke threat is not in it's fact but rather in it's potential. They are producing 20% enriched uranium but even that production is problematic. On page 14 of the [URL='https://web.archive.org/web/20110303185609/http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20100202_testimony.pdf'][COLOR=#ff0000]Feb. 2010' CIA Threat Assessment to the US Senate[/COLOR][/URL], the CIA re-affirmed the 2007' NIE assessment that there exists only the potential for weapons grade production and not that there is. Also found the Arms Control Association an interesting resource for information to further research. A report from a few days ago I found of interest. The underground facility at Qom does bare watching but in light of threats by various nationstates to bomb Iran's nuclear capacity and considering that Iran is a Shi'a Islamic nation surrounded entirely by Sunni nationstates, is it any wonder they are a bit paranoid these days? What would you do if you were Iran and wanted to preserve your self determination as a nationstate? You might build your stuff underground too so the Qom facility considering the eternal threat is not entirely irrational. Drilling down as best I can, I'm just not convinced that Iran is the threat it's being portrayed as being. To borrow the CIA term blowback and as well covered by the late Chalmers Johnson in his book Blowback, our current efforts stand to only generate this kind of negative outcome. And to go one step further, not unlike our efforts to provoke North Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin, I'm not convinced the current situation are efforts to do the very same thing. Again see my response in the Iran thread I will shortly post. The greater question that must be asked, are individual and property rights as well as market rights something we in the west, specifically America only enjoy or is this an ideal that all across the planet should enjoy? What about the right of self defense? Hmmm, how do you declare your right to defend yourself and the right to bear arms if you deny the same for others? This would mean the right of self defense and even the right to life, liberty and property are not natural rights and instead are civil rights only and can be regulated in any manner including taking away that right from individuals, communities and yes even nationstates. I never said real freedom and liberty was easy or without taking some risks. Ron speaks a bit on where he's coming from when speaking about our actions in Pakistan. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
ron paul.
Top