PJB: Bring Our Marines Home

[Winehole23]

Bring Our Marines Home (http://buchanan.org/blog/bring-our-marines-home-3557)


By Patrick J. Buchanan
http://www.buchanan.org/images/pjb-column1.jpgA month after Germany surrendered in May 1945, America’s eyes turned to the Far East, where the bloodiest battle of the Pacific war was joined on the island of Okinawa.

Twelve thousand U.S. soldiers and Marines would die — twice as many dead in 82 days of fighting as have died in all the years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq.


Within weeks of the battle’s end came Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Three weeks later, Gen. MacArthur took the Japanese surrender on the battleship Missouri.


That was 65 years ago, as far away in time from today as the Marines’ arrival at Da Nang was from Teddy Roosevelt’s charge up San Juan Hill.
Yet the Marines are still on Okinawa. But, in 2006, the United States negotiated a $26 billion deal to move 8,000 to Guam and the other Marines from the Futenma air base in the south to the more isolated town of Nago on the northern tip. Okinawans have long protested the crime, noise and pollution at Futenma.


The problem arose last year when the Liberal Democratic Party that negotiated the deal was ousted and the Democratic Party of Japan elected on a promise to pursue a policy more balanced between Beijing and Washington.


The new prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, indicated his unease with the Futenma deal, and promised to review it and decide by May. Voters in Nago just elected a mayor committed to keeping the new base out.


This weekend, thousands demonstrated in Tokyo against moving the Marine air station to Nago. Some demanded removal of all U.S. forces from Japan. After 65 years, they want us out. And Prime Minister Hatoyama has been feeding the sentiment. In January, he terminated Japan’s eight-year mission refueling U.S. ships aiding in the Afghan war effort.


All of which raises a question. If Tokyo does not want Marines on Okinawa, why stay? And if Japanese regard Marines as a public nuisance, rather than a protective force, why not remove the irritant and bring them home?
Indeed, why are we still defending Japan? She is no longer the ruined nation of 1945, but the second-largest economy on earth and among the most technologically advanced.


The Sino-Soviet bloc against which we defended her in the Cold War dissolved decades ago. The Soviet Union no longer exists. China is today a major trading partner of Japan. Russia and India have long borders with China, but neither needs U.S. troops to defend them.


Should a clash come between China and Japan over the disputed Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, why should that involve us?


Comes the retort: American troops are in Japan to defend South Korea and Taiwan. But South Korea has a population twice that of the North, an economy 40 times as large, access to the most advanced weapons in the U.S. arsenal and a U.S. commitment to come to her defense by air and sea in any second Korean War.


And if there is a second Korean War, why should the 28,000 U.S. troops still in Korea, many on the DMZ, or Marines from Futenma have to fight and die? Is South Korea lacking for soldiers? Seoul, too, has been the site of anti-American demonstrations demanding we get out.


Why do we Americans seem more desperate to defend these countries than their people are to have us defend them? Is letting go of the world we grew up in so difficult?


Consider Taiwan. On his historic trip to Beijing in 1972, Richard Nixon agreed Taiwan was part of China. Jimmy Carter recognized Beijing as the sole legitimate government. Ronald Reagan committed us to cut back arms sales to Taiwan.


Yet, last week, we announced a $6.4 billion weapons sale to an island we agree is a province of China. Beijing, whose power is a product of the trade deficits we have run, is enraged that we are arming the lost province she is trying to bring back to the motherland.


Is it worth a clash with China to prevent Taiwan from assuming the same relationship to Beijing the British acceded to with Hong Kong? In tourism, trade, travel and investment, Taiwan is herself deepening her relationship with the mainland. Is it not time for us to cut the cord?


With the exception of the Soviet Union, few nations in history have suffered such a relative decline in power and influence as the United States in the last decade. We are tied down in two wars, are universally disliked and are running back-to-back deficits of 10 percent of gross domestic product, as our debt is surging to 100 percent of GDP.


A strategic retreat from Eurasia to our own continent and country is inevitable. Let it begin by graciously acceding to Japan’s request we remove our Marines from Okinawa and politely inquiring if they wish us to withdraw U.S. forces from the Home Islands, as well.

[boutons_deux]

nah, the MIC is pocketing $Bs from continuous wars, and will tell its whores in Congress, esp the Repugs, to keep the wars going.

aka, War Is Business

By bankrupting the country with wars and $600B wasted on the military, the Repugs will, in their grand scheme to fuckover Americans, start demanding cuts in SocSec/Medicar/medicaid. Guns ALWAYS before butter for the neo-con and Repug assholes.

[Marcus Bryant]

Which party controls the executive and legislative branches, again?

[mogrovejo]

Ah, is there any other public figure who more proudly and candidly displays the heart and mind of a tyrant than Buchanan?

[Winehole23]

How so?

[clambake]

pat poking a stick in the beehive.

blackwater works for corporations, too.

[Marcus Bryant]

How so?

[boutons_deux]

blackwater/xe also works directly for Dept of State.

[mogrovejo]

Liberty is for the people... except the liberty of engaging in commerce with whom he or they want to. If that funest thought raises ones mind, you can count on Mr. Buchanan to lecture the masses about the dearest primacy of the raison d'état.

You're free to do anything you want... except something the state may not like.

[clambake]

so...their liberty is something that can only be attained by US permission?

[Marcus Bryant]

"Liberty" is now maintaining a military empire so that McDonnell-Douglas can enjoy lucrative contracts for which it buys politicians. Got it, mousefulidioto.

[mogrovejo]

Ah, the mind of a fascist: somebody agrees to a voluntarily, commercial act with somebody else, with no interference from the state - they immediately scream "EMPIRE! THAT'S NOT IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC GOOD!!". Even better if one of the parties involved is a foreigner, it allows the xenophobic bone to show off.

[Marcus Bryant]

Internets Political Discussion Rule #2 - the first person to drop "fascist" is the most fascistic in the thread.

[clambake]

oh...it's a commercial venture. got it.

[Marcus Bryant]

And it's amusing that "fascism" never seems to cover handouts to Wall Street and defense contractors at the expense of all Americans. Oh, we have to worry about wealth transfers down, never up. Go jack off to your copy of The Law, mobastiato.

[Winehole23]

http://websters.wunderdictionary.com/dictionary/def/english/funest.htmlb

[mogrovejo]

The Public Good is their God. Bail-outs for big companies? It's in the name of the public good. Restricting freedom of trade? Public good demands it. Restrictions to freedom of speech? Well, it's the public good. Narrow base taxes? Public good.

It's all about the state and the "public good". And nobody is more than a small piece in their insane machinery.

[spursncowboys]

Internets Political Discussion Rule #2 - the first person to drop "fascist" is the most fascistic in the thread.
No, Internet Political Discussion Rule #2- Always obey Internet Political Discussion Rule #1

[clambake]

so...how soon should this small piece of a prime minister be punished?

[ChumpDumper]

Is there really a need for 13 military bases on Okinawa alone?

There are nine more in other parts of Japan.

[clambake]

Is there really a need for 13 military bases on Okinawa alone?

There are nine more in other parts of Japan.

it's not about that anymore. the very idea should be outlawed.

[Cane]

Reasons off the top of my head why Marines and Co. should stay in Japan and South Korea:

1. North Korea. They're unstable, got a crazy history, likely just as crazy of a future, have enough men, artilley, and other military equipment to inflict millions upon millions of casualties in the area. Oh yea and they're developing nuke tech. Leaving that area gives NK a chance to do more with their saber than just rattle it - lets not forget they've been actively engaging in skirmishes across the DMZ and surrounding waters.

2. Infrastructure for #1. In the event of a NK invasion, SK and its allies will have milllions of casualties and billions upon billions in monetary damage. This is why having bases in Japan is useful.

3. By having forces in Japan it deters them from rising militarily and from wanting to develop WMD's. Having Americans there strengthens our alliance and puts our money where our mouth is in terms of protecting our allies.

4. High ranking US-military leaders have not been too outspoken about this which speaks volumes considering we've been engaged in several wars since establishing 30,000 troops in the area. If the US military brass says we should stay, I'm going to trust their word over a politician's article.

5. Readily available humanitarian aid. This region is susceptible to monsoons and other potential natural diasters - people don't realize that grunts do a lot more than just fight and in many cases aren't too different from volunteer humanitrian programs.

[Winehole23]

Liberty is for the people... except the liberty of engaging in commerce with whom he or they want to. If that funest thought raises ones mind, you can count on Mr. Buchanan to lecture the masses about the dearest primacy of the raison d'état. Unless I am mistaken, this is every inch the non-sequitur.


You're free to do anything you want... except something the state may not like.Power limits whatever it chooses to limit. You may question the legitimacy of that power, but not its existence IMO.

The state in a sense cannot touch natural law but the reverse is often true as well. Political power is often necessary to make natural law effective and enforceable.

This is the tradition in the US, for example. Our form of government was conceived to preserve certain liberties not inconsonant with natural law, but also some traditional English liberties. That it restricts us according to the covenant is part of the covenant, as is the coordinate power of the states over us. Submitting to the authority of the valid laws of the USA and the states we inhabit is part of the bargain.

Pretending it is not marks mogrovejo as the denizen of a philosophical cloud-cuckoo-land, where there is liberty but no political state. Or perhaps, more ominously, of a post-political corporate globalism, where nation-states hollowed out by crippling debt and finlandized by impending default, do the bidding of the great corporations and global finance.

[Winehole23]

The Public Good is their God. Bail-outs for big companies? It's in the name of the public good. Restricting freedom of trade? Public good demands it. Restrictions to freedom of speech? Well, it's the public good. Narrow base taxes? Public good.

It's all about the state and the "public good". And nobody is more than a small piece in their insane machinery.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YnI_dEgsJ_s/SMYXRIlcfAI/AAAAAAAAKh8/TdQ8-0DK_EU/s400/Picture+1.pngb

[Marcus Bryant]

Pretending it is not marks mogrovejo as the denizen of a philosophical cloud-cuckoo-land, where there is liberty but no political state. Or perhaps, more ominously, that of a post-political corporate globalism, where nation-states hollowed out by crippling debt and finlandized by impending default, do the bidding of the great corporations and global finance.


http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8894/kaneklapqo6.gif

[doobs]

I really want a PB & J now.

[Marcus Bryant]

The end result of taking ol' Ayn literally.

[Marcus Bryant]

WH, I believe that's known as the Union of AnarchoCapitalist Republics these days.

[Marcus Bryant]

Or, WalMartistan.

[Marcus Bryant]

Steal from the poor, hang with the rich.

[Marcus Bryant]

Who knew all natural rights were economic in nature? The fatal flaw of Marxists and the Ubermenchen Randians.

[Marcus Bryant]

Rand must've been one dirty bitch in the sack though.

[mogrovejo]

Unless, I am mistaken, this is every inch the non-sequitur.

Power limits whatever it chooses to limit. You may question the legitimacy of that power, but not its existence IMO.

The state in a sense cannot touch natural law but the reverse is often true as well. Political power is often necessary to make natural law effective and enforceable.

This is the tradition in the US, for example. Our form of government was conceived to preserve certain liberties not inconsonant with natural law, but also some traditional English liberties. That it restricts us according to the covenant is part of the covenant, as is the coordinate power of the states over us. Submitting to the authority of the valid laws of the USA and the states we inhabit is part of the bargain.

Pretending it is not marks mogrovejo as the denizen of a philosophical cloud-cuckoo-land, where there is liberty but no political state. Or perhaps, more ominously, that of a post-political corporate globalism, where nation-states hollowed out by crippling debt and finlandized by impending default, do the bidding of the great corporations and global finance.

This is the classic defence of the tyrannical system of governing a political community. Funny to see it being made so openly in the 21th century. Very unusual.

Accordingly to Buchanan and his clique of excited teenagers with silly existential angsts against corporations, the dual party system and the likes (read Winehole and MarcusBryant), the freedom of the individual only goes as far as the interest of the state allows it - and those who decry from their creed that the Framers would see for what it is are "crazy batshits".

Mr. Buchanan and his friends in Wall Street don't want to bother the Chinese political-business oligarchy and their gigantic market? Well, all that needs to be said is that allowing private parties to do something that may bother the Chinese illegal is "against the national interest". And, therefore, the long arm of the government and his coercive force must act against those who jeopardize the interests of Mr. Buchanan and his friends. Oh, and you can even wrap it up in some populist, anti-militaristic rhetoric, that way some silly teenagers, those who parrot the crazyness of Ayn Rand or the Birchers, will always fall for it.

In the name of "the national interest", the clique justifies giving the government the power to wiretap whoever they want, suspend the habeas corpus, transfer huge amounts of wealth from ones pockets to others, go to wars, restrict speech because of the nature of the speaker, borrow money from the unborn - whatever the oracles in Washington see fit. Because, after all, they're just coordinating "the power of the states over us" and submitting to the authority of whatever the government decides is the role that the people must play.

[boutons_deux]

"Which party controls the executive and legislative branches"

Corporations Party

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.goin2cuba.ca/images/upload_listings/magick.php/Cookoo-%28Birds%29-4.jpg

[Marcus Bryant]

Yeah, silly us who would prefer not to see the government transfer wealth up to those who own the government. mobastiato lives in a fantasyland in which that does not occur, but rather believes that the business and financial elite in this country are a bunch of George Baileys. Buy. A. Fucking. Clue.

[Winehole23]

This is the classic defence of the tyrannical system of governing a political community. Funny to see it being made so openly in the 21th century. Very unusualIt is a description of political power as it actually exists, not as it should be. Perhaps that is why it seems so strange to you.

The state protects and enforces rights; without a political state, there is no guarantee or enforcement of rights, apart from the naked force of smaller communities and, of course the individual himself.

[Marcus Bryant]

It is a description of political power as it actually exists, not as it should be. Perhaps that is why it seems so strange to you.

The state protects and enforces rights; without a political state, there is no guarantee or enforcement of rights, apart from the naked force of smaller communities and, of course the individual himself.

Of course. No protection, no thought of equal rights for the economically weak. And he scoffs at Rand?

[mogrovejo]

It is a description of political power as it actually exists, not as it should be. Perhaps that is why it seems so strange to you.

The state protects and enforces rights; without a political state, there is no guarantee or enforcement of rights, apart from the naked force of smaller communities and, of course the individual himself.

BS. Between Locke and Rousseau (and his descendents, including Buchanan), there's an abyss. One thing is the function of the state as a protector of the natural rights; the other is to grant the state and those who command it the legitimate right to cumber-stomp and annihilate a natural right in the name of abstract concepts like "national interest", "common good", "equality" and so on.

[mogrovejo]

A very easy, basic, distinction that the Founding Fathers made multiple times. No wonder that these days few can comprehend it.

[mogrovejo]

Back in the day, they used to call it "limited government".

[Marcus Bryant]

If anyone is taking a Rousseauian position, 'tis you and your defense of the current American economic order. Your belief in the myth of an existing unfettered free market is glaring. Further, your belief that it is not welcomed by businessmen and used to their advantage is naive. You in no way travel in the tradition of Locke, nor of the Founders who were quite suspicious of economic power, not to mention state chartered corporations. Stop peddling your myths around here.

[mogrovejo]

But again, Mr. Buchanan's openness (which is, in this regard, no momentary excentricity but an habit of mind) when it comes to his wish to see the principle of limited government banished and replaced by the tyranny of the state shall be commended.

[Winehole23]

BS. Between Locke and Rousseau (and his descendents, including Buchanan), there's an abyss. One thing is the function of the state as a protector of the natural rights; What I was talking about.


the other is to grant the state and those who command it the legitimate right to cumber-stomp and annihilate a natural right in the name of abstract concepts like "national interest", "common good", "equality" and so on.Overstatement. Our government wasn't curb-stomping the "natural rights" of corporations before Citizen's United, and mind you and me are in agreement as to the merits of the case.

One difference is, you seem to have swallowed the majority's crocodile tears over the "absolute, outright ban" on corporate speech, while I see it as a ridiculous and tendentious overstatement.

[Marcus Bryant]

Since when is the removal of state subsidization tyrannical? We are truly through the looking glass now.

[mogrovejo]

If anyone is taking a Rousseauian position, 'tis you and your defense of the current American economic order. Your belief in the myth of an existing unfettered free market is glaring. Further, your belief that it is not welcomed by businessmen and used to their advantage is naive. You in no way travel in the tradition of Locke, nor of the Founders who were quite suspicious of economic power, not to mention state chartered corporations. Stop peddling your myths around here.

Hey kid, that's a hard point to sell considering the number of posts that I've written against the bail-outs, corporate welfare and, even in this one, Mr. Buchanan's willingness to subject individual rights to the interest of the pro-big business and "state" interests, that you obviously defend. Of course, I suspect my position is a bit difficult to understand for a person like you.

[mogrovejo]

Overstatement. Our government wasn't curb-stomping the "natural rights" of corporations before Citizen's United, and mind you and me are in agreement as to the merits of the case.

One difference is, you seem to have swallowed the majority's crocodile tears over the "absolute, outright ban" on corporate speech, while I see it as a ridiculous and tendentious overstatement.

You're confused. This thread wasn't about CU. A

[mogrovejo]

What I was talking about..

Hardly. But if you were, then I'm happy to see you agree with me.

[Winehole23]

What natural right were you referring to then?

[mogrovejo]

More reading (like actual books, say, the Federalist Papers) instead of making a living of parroting whatever the AmericanConservativeMagazine (oh, what is supposed to be conservative these days) or FOX news or Air America "speak" sounds like a good advise.

[Winehole23]

More side-stepping and homework assignments. Thematic.

[Winehole23]

Why don't you just post the relevant passages yourself? Or just tick off which essays you mean?

[Winehole23]

Otherwise, who's to say you don't have a paper asshole too?

[Marcus Bryant]

Hey kid, that's a hard point to sell considering the number of posts that I've written against the bail-outs, corporate welfare and, even in this one, Mr. Buchanan's willingness to subject individual rights to the interest of the pro-big business and "state" interests, that you obviously defend. Of course, I suspect my position is a bit difficult to understand for a person like you.

Yawn. See the world as it is, instead of what fits your childish theories. That you think your position is advanced or elegant is amusing. I guess if you have come across Hayek, Friedman, Bastiat, et al recently, it may seem so. I recall feeling that way in my teens.

[mogrovejo]

Yawn. See the world as it is, instead of what fits your childish theories. That you think your position is advanced or elegant is amusing. I guess if you have come across Hayek, Friedman, Bastiat, et al recently, it may seem so. I recall feeling that way in my teens.

How Randian - the is/ought to be problem doesn't exist.

Can't you understand that simply saying "it's the world as it is" doesn't make it wrong to say "this is a tyranny" or "this is a tyranical point of view"? I'm not sure if this is possible to be explained in more simple terms.

Mr. Buchanan sustains and defends an anti-liberty, anti-US political tradition, pro-tyrannical position. Simply saying "yeah, but the "national interest" rationale is often used to sustain tyrannical positions" doesn't make it less so.

Oh, and yes, I've read all those guys and many others - most of them with different views. No problems with reading books over here.

[Marcus Bryant]

Buchanan supports tyranny because he is tyrannical. How 2nd grade of you.

Yes, you are quite in the Rand tradition.

[mogrovejo]

I've already explained why is Buchanan defending a liberticide position, it's not because of a tautology. Not surprised that Bryant seems to think it is though - how can you understand what destruction of liberty is if you don't know what liberty is?

And LOL at the childish attempts to link to me to Rand. Oh, the irony.

[EVAY]

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8894/kaneklapqo6.gif

Well said. well done.

[clambake]

liberty with a catch.

funny stuff.

[Marcus Bryant]

Soon enough, the mobastiatos of the world will be praising the Chinese state for ordering its economy appropriately, while the backwards United States continues to cling to the notion of equal rights before the law, even if that means the commons must fight a Wal-Mart or Goldman Sachs on the same turf for political favors.

Pseudo intellectual cocksuckers like mohayeko are why the individual has been demoted in the American constitutional system in favor of a managed economy which favors large business interests, all done under the fraudulent veil of free enterprise. We have nothing of the sort in this country. The Randian vision of a society ordered to promote the strong at the expense of the weak has come true. mofriedmano is here to ensure we sing its praises.

[mogrovejo]

Kid, you're aware that the guy urging the government to struck down the natural right of individuals in the name of the interests of the Chinese government and its commercial partners (especially the big companies that sell/buy in/to China) is Buchanan, right? And that I'm writing in opposition to his view.

[Marcus Bryant]

Kid, you're aware that the guy urging the government to struck down

When you get mad at being exposed you apparently lose the ability to express yourself properly.

And it's rather amusing that you deign to talk down to me. You are an intellectual fraud in possession of an empty mind and a functioning modem. Such is a fundamental flaw in the internets.




the natural right of individuals in the name of the interests of the Chinese government and its commercial partners (especially the big companies that sell/buy in/to China) is Buchanan, right? And that I'm writing in opposition to his view.

Yawn. The "natural right" of Wal-Mart and General Electric. Your true concern shines through.

[mogrovejo]

It's amazing this guy's inability to comprehend simple stuff.

Buchanan - "Hey, we can't afford our big companies to lose the Chinese market, let's appease their government at all costs! If it means government interference into private commerce, be it!".

Bryant - "Yes Sir! Long Live the All-Mighty State who gives us Rights!"

[Marcus Bryant]

Now you're so flustered you have become incoherent.

[mogrovejo]

What natural right were you referring to then?

What an odd question. Have you actually read Buchanan's text? The right to trade, obviously. Maybe you should read a very interesting text called A Summary View of the Rights of British America (http://books.google.com/books?id=HW7zAmsuvQoC&dq=%22A+Summary+View+of+the+Rights+of+British+Amer ica%22&pg=PP1&ots=O0W4V4LeDM&sig=OMjGnZFhXqXAh34Sv7J0-ygbG1w&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA8,M1).

(no, Marcus Bryant, it wasn't written by Buchanan, Hayek, Bastiat, Rawls, Arendt or any of those guys whose name you've seen mentioned once or twice in AmConMag).

[Marcus Bryant]

Keep on spinning.

[Winehole23]

What an odd question. Have you actually read Buchanan's text? Are you talking about the OP, or some other thing by Buchanan?

For the life of me I can't figure out what Buchanan suggesting that US Marines be pulled out of Japan and Korea has to do with free trade (or any abrogation thereof), or the state's raison d'etre. It still seems like a non-sequitur. Maybe you could sketch out the connections you have failed to supply in the thread. Obscurity for its own sake, allusiveness and indirectness may be valued in the academy as curlicued refinement, but outside of it, it just seems like horseshit. Most of the time it is. You need to quit reasoning by fiat and fill in the lacunae -- there are many.


The right to trade, obviously. Maybe you should read a very interesting text called A Summary View of the Rights of British America (http://books.google.com/books?id=HW7zAmsuvQoC&dq=%22A+Summary+View+of+the+Rights+of+British+Amer ica%22&pg=PP1&ots=O0W4V4LeDM&sig=OMjGnZFhXqXAh34Sv7J0-ygbG1w&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA8,M1).Thanks for the recommendation.

I'll read it for the mere pleasure of disagreeing with someone so disagreeable as yourself.

[mogrovejo]

Are you talking about the OP, or some other thing by Buchanan?

For the life of me I can't figure out what Buchanan suggesting that US Marines be pulled out of Japan and Korea has to do with free trade (or any abrogation thereof), or the state's raison d'etre. It still seems like a non-sequitur. Maybe you could sketch out the connections you have failed to supply in the thread. Obscurity for its own sake, allusiveness and indirectness may be valued in the academy as curlicued refinement, but outside of it, it just seems like horseshit. Most of the time it is. You need to quit reasoning by fiat and fill in the lacunae -- there are many.

The OP.

Not surprised.

Re-read the OP.

As I've said multiple times, Buchanan is urging the US government to stop one's natural right to engage in commerce (in this case with Taiwan) in the name of the national interest (which is, in itself, a metaphor for "the business interests of myself and my friends).


Thanks for the recommendation.

I'll read it for the mere pleasure of disagreeing with someone so disagreeable as yourself.

Considering your political positions, I believe that you'll find the author even more disagreeable.

[Winehole23]

As I've said multiple times, Buchanan is urging the US government to stop one's natural right to engage in commerce (in this case with Taiwan) in the name of the national interest (which is, in itself, a metaphor for "the business interests of myself and my friends).Relationship with China? Strategic priority or no?

Upholding traditional American foreign policy vis-a-vis Taiwan? Is it important?

If not, why not?

[Winehole23]

Considering your political positions, I believe that you'll find the author even more disagreeable.Ho ho. Trying to out###### me now. Throws out TJ as a tackling dummy.

Like you know anything about me. Or living in America.

[Winehole23]

Funny that you think you can lecture us all about it.

[Winehole23]

HYPOCRITE, n. One who, professing virtues that he does not respect, secures the advantage of seeming to be what he despises.

[mogrovejo]

Relationship with China? Strategic priority or no?

Upholding traditional American foreign policy vis-a-vis Taiwan? Is it important?

If not, why not?

As I've said multiple times, in my view natural rights are not subject to the "national interest".

Is this really that difficult to understand?

Oh, and it's about time you stop with the childish name-calling. Your obsession is becoming creepy and sad at the same time. I'm asking you to end with that crap right now, please. Thanks.

[Winehole23]

As I've said multiple times, in my view natural rights are not subject to the "national interest".

Is this really that difficult to understand?No. I was unaware of the other times. Please overlook my inattention to your previous remarks.


Oh, and it's about time you stop with the childish name-calling. Your obsession is becoming creepy and sad at the same time. I'm asking you to end with that crap right now, please. Thanks.Whenever you stop, I'll stop.

[Winehole23]

I doubt you can.

[mogrovejo]

No. I was unaware of the other times. Please overlook my inattention to your previous remarks.

Okay, now you know. Btw, what's your position?

[Winehole23]

That there is such a thing as strategic interests, and that they sometimes trump other things. Like our long tradition of civil liberties and privacy.

Why not business interests, occasionally?

Do we really need to arm up the Taiwan Strait, right now?

[mogrovejo]

That there is such a thing as strategic interests, and that they sometimes trump other things. Like our long tradition of civil liberties and privacy.

Why not business interests, occasionally?

I don't know, that's a question you need to answer - I don't even consider it.

Why should a natural right be subject to the business interest of a view or the interest of the government? What's the criteria? "Occasionally" seems awfully vague to me. And if some natural rights can be torpedoed by the "strategic interest" of the government, and the government itself defines what the "strategic interest" is, what would exactly stop the government from curbing natural rights all the time and not just occasionally (whatever "occasionally" is supposed to mean)?

I mean, why one's right to engage in commerce and not, say, your right to live in liberty?

[Winehole23]

I see what you're saying, it just doesn't seem very realistic.

[Winehole23]

More like theoretical.

[Winehole23]

Academic, if you will.

[mogrovejo]

Oh in that case we don't need to worry about Mr. Buchanan's tyrannical suggestions. It's merely theoretical.

ps - your inability to answer the questions is, besides expected, quite telling. Your suggestion that a tyranny is an academic scenario just plain hilarious. I'd suggest, I don't know, this short article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_century

[Winehole23]

You were worried?

[Winehole23]

In the world you are talking about, there are no *valid* geostrategic interests. I would say the frequency of war between nations somewhat contradicts this thesis, but whatever.

[Winehole23]

Believe whatever happy horseshit gets you through the night.

[mogrovejo]

You were worried?

I am. I believe, with Weaver, that ideas have consequences and the ideas defended by the likes of Buchanan worry me. That's beyond the point though - as long as nobody disputes the nature of those ideas, I don't have much to say.

[mogrovejo]

In the world you are talking about, there are no *valid* geostrategic interests. I would say the frequency of war between nations somewhat contradicts this thesis, but whatever.

Nope, you're wrong.

[Winehole23]

About what please? Can you be specific?