DANIEL HAANAN: "I'm grateful for what US did in both Gulf wars"

[max]

Haanan just told Hannity he was proud and grateful for what USA did in both Gulf wars

Oh well....the Haanan fling was fun while it lasted....

[Kraig]

hahaha

[bossman068410]

Don't forget the NEOCONS in conversion still hold onto old baggage. The question is if they stay a neocon or grow beyond it.

[Xenophage]

yuck

[Kludge]

What was his reasoning?

[nate895]

I don't believe you. He has even said he would have voted for Ron Paul.

[LittleLightShining]

Britain is so far gone that he idealizes America. If you listen to him Haanan has nothing but praise and admiration for the American system as it should be. I don't hold that comment against him at all. (I didn't hear him say it, though.)

[Xenophage]

I was pro-war but anti-government before I started listening to Ron Paul. (embarrassingly)

There's hope for Daniel. We'll see.

[rpfan2008]

what USA did in both Gulf wars



Multiplied the number of Islamic radicals.

[Young Paleocon]

Multiplied the number of Islamic radicals.

High five for the multiplier effect.

[jmlfod87]

torchbearer can tell Hannan's assistants to stop surfing our forums now.

[MRoCkEd]

or we can try and change his mind

[jmlfod87]

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives. "- Leo Tolstoy

Or in the simpler terms: You can't teach an old dog new tricks. That's why its important to convert them while their young.

[Xenophage]

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives. "- Leo Tolstoy

Or in the simpler terms: You can't teach an old dog new tricks. That's why its important to convert them while their young.

Yep.

[Deborah K]

Good Grief people, so if political leaders don't fall in lock-step with every single one of your principles then to hell with them? Do you agree with every single thing Dr. Paul says, cuz I know I sure don't. You don't want leaders, you want robots that you can program.

[Spike]

Good Grief people, so if political leaders don't fall in lock-step with every single one of your principles then to hell with them? Do you agree with every single thing Dr. Paul says, cuz I know I sure don't. You don't want leaders, you want robots that you can program.

True, but the Iraq war is no small issue. Half a trillion already spent. Millions of lives lost. Who knows what other consequences may emerge in the future.

I don't care if Dr. Paul is pro-life. I'll let that slide because he's a doctor and is principled. So being in lockstep with leaders is not practical but supporting the Iraq War? No way.

[ramallamamama]

I was out and about today thinking Hannan should be the VP alongside Dr Paul. Hell, they let Barry Sotoro get into the white house. Then I read the info contained in this thread. NEXT!

[MRoCkEd]

True, but the Iraq war is no small issue. Half a trillion already spent. Millions of lives lost. Who knows what other consequences may emerge in the future.

I don't care if Dr. Paul is pro-life. I'll let that slide because he's a doctor and is principled. So being in lockstep with leaders is not practical but supporting the Iraq War? No way.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2008/06/04/its_not_easy_being_a_proobama_tory


Although, after much agonising, I opposed the invasion of Iraq, I am even more opposed to the sanctimonious tone in which some of my fellow antis attack the war's supporters, refusing to acknowledge that they might have acted from decent and principled motives.

Better than supporting the war himself, I suppose.

[max]

Good Grief people, so if political leaders don't fall in lock-step with every single one of your principles then to hell with them? Do you agree with every single thing Dr. Paul says, cuz I know I sure don't. You don't want leaders, you want robots that you can program.

This sensless, wasteful, bloody, immoral war is too big of an issue to tolerate. Millions of innocents dead...trillions of dollars wasted...civil liberties here at home lost as a result...

no threat to USA...no weapons of mass destruction....no links to 9/11

sickening

sorry......no compromise on this one

[Joe3113]

Hannan is against the Iraq War and is pretty much against Afghanistan also. I read his blog.

[SWATH]

I heard it too, he kind of sounded like a....neocon. However he seemed to want to skirt the issue of foreign policy so I'll give him some of the benefit of the doubt.

[max]

Hannan is against the Iraq War and is pretty much against Afghanistan also. I read his blog.

well, he was quite clear on Hannity today that he was grateful to the US for fighting the wars...

perhaps he's one of these all-things-to-all-people chameleons

[MRoCkEd]

Damn. I really wish he destroyed Pawn Hannity on the war issue.

[Deborah K]

This sensless, wasteful, bloody, immoral war is too big of an issue to tolerate. Millions of innocents dead...trillions of dollars wasted...civil liberties here at home lost as a result...

no threat to USA...no weapons of mass destruction....no links to 9/11

sickening

sorry......no compromise on this one

First of all, he condoned the gulf wars from the 90's not the Iraq war, let's get that straight. Secondly, if the Iraq war is your litmus test, then so be it. Good luck with that one.

[JoshLowry]

Secondly, if the Iraq war is your litmus test, then so be it. Good luck with that one.

An individual's stance on the Iraq war makes for a great litmus test.

[tremendoustie]

First of all, he condoned the gulf wars from the 90's not the Iraq war, let's get that straight. Secondly, if the Iraq war is your litmus test, then so be it. Good luck with that one.


It is absolutely a litmus test for me. Also, opposition to bailouts, advocacy of states rights, opposition to the Fed, to name a few.

[sailor]

Although, after much agonising, I opposed the invasion of Iraq, I am even more opposed to the sanctimonious tone in which some of my fellow antis attack the war's supporters, refusing to acknowledge that they might have acted from decent and principled motives.

Who is being sanctimonious here? :rolleyes:

"I`m against the war, but if you don`t give pro-war people credit you are a dirty hippie."

Pro-war people can go screw themselves. It was clear from an aeroplane it was going to be a war of aggression. Anybody who was deluded about that deluded himself willfully.

Think more about the innocent victims of the war in Iraq and less about the "decent and principled motives" of the pro-war sheep and their sinister handlers in the establishment media.



Sounds like he isn`t against the war. He just "happens to be against the war". There is a big difference.

[Joe3113]

An individual's stance on the Iraq war makes for a great litmus test.

It is .... and Hannan was against it. He is an old fashioned Hayek Conservative.

[GunnyFreedom]

LOL, my take is that Hannan offered an essentially meaningless puff of smoke up Hannity's butt, in the way of pandering for more air-time.

Not something I would do personally, but if he is so willing then more power to him. The more the message is preached, the more people get reached... lol

[dr. hfn]

pro war and pro liberty don't mix

[torchbearer]

pro war and pro liberty don't mix

he's not pro-war.
i thought highly of Max's post until this thread.
Gunny is more correct in his assessment.

[reduen]

Ok folks, what is the 4 1 on this thing? I will not promote Hannan if he was for the gulf wars. I know that not everyone is a "pacifist" like me but there has not been even a "just war" since WW2 and even that is a stretch in my opinion...

Is Hannan for real or is he just another Romney type critter who says whatever you want to hear to gain support...?

[Joe3113]

Ok folks, what is the 4 1 on this thing? I will not promote Hannan if he was for the gulf wars. I know that not everyone is a "pacifist" like me but there has not been even a "just war" since WW2 and even that is a stretch in my opinion...

Is Hannan for real or is he just another Romney type critter who says whatever you want to hear to gain support...?

He's not Romney. He opposes all bailouts and is very intelligent.

He opposed the Iraq War. Period.

Romney supported bailouts and is a cement head with neocon sympathies.

[Deborah K]

It is absolutely a litmus test for me. Also, opposition to bailouts, advocacy of states rights, opposition to the Fed, to name a few.


For me it is a little more complicated than that. First of all, many converts on this forum alone, thought initially that invading Iraq was justified because of the lies we were all told by the gov't. If you are a pacifist and against all wars period, then there is no discussion. If, however, you believe in 'justified' war, the question then becomes: "who determines what is 'justified'?

I believe that Hannan stands for most of my principles. If he thought Iraq and the Gulf wars were justified and now he doesn't, then I am happy to cut him that slack. I don't think any of us can afford to be so stuck on our philosophies and principles that we can turn our backs on leaders who are getting our message out there. To me, that's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If we find that our chosen messengers to the sleeping are off track, it's our duty to get them back on track, not abandon them altogether. That makes no sense at all. We must do our best to enlighten before we decide to forsake.

[reduen]

For me it is a little more complicated than that. First of all, many converts on this forum alone, thought initially that invading Iraq was justified because of the lies we were all told by the gov't. If you are a pacifist and against all wars period, then there is no discussion. If, however, you believe in 'justified' war, the question then becomes: "who determines what is 'justified'?

I believe that Hannan stands for most of my principles. If he thought Iraq and the Gulf wars were justified and now he doesn't, then I am happy to cut him that slack. I don't think any of us can afford to be so stuck on our philosophies and principles that we can turn our backs on leaders who are getting our message out there. To me, that's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If we find that our chosen messengers to the sleeping are off track, it's our duty to get them back on track, not abandon them altogether. That makes no sense at all. We must do our best to enlighten before we decide to forsake.

Well.., good point. I have not always been a "pacifist" and I voted for Bush both times....

I think that once you wake up and realize that there has never been anything "just" about the war in Iraq it is sometimes hard to understand why everyone else does not see it.

[JoshLowry]

For me it is a little more complicated than that. First of all, many converts on this forum alone, thought initially that invading Iraq was justified because of the lies we were all told by the gov't. If you are a pacifist and against all wars period, then there is no discussion. If, however, you believe in 'justified' war, the question then becomes: "who determines what is 'justified'?

I believe that Hannan stands for most of my principles. If he thought Iraq and the Gulf wars were justified and now he doesn't, then I am happy to cut him that slack.

I think many here believe in just war, myself included.

Where did Hannan say he thinks that the Gulf Wars were not justified? He just stated that he is grateful for what the US did over there.

[specsaregood]

If, however, you believe in 'justified' war, the question then becomes: "who determines what is 'justified'?


I was asleep at the wheel at first too and I voted for bush the first time.

But in regards to the Iraq war, justified doesn't even fit into it. How about, is it "constitutional"? The "justified" aspect *should* be worked out during the process of congress declaring a war, constitutionally.

Of course they don't feel the need to do that:


"There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events,
by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer
relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don't have to? We are
saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare
war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this
situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn't done anymore." ---Henry Hyde to Ron Paul in response to his motion to Declare War on Iraq

[Deborah K]

I think many here believe in just war, myself included.

Where did Hannan say he thinks that the Gulf Wars were not justified? He just stated that he is grateful for what the US did over there.

He didn't as far as I know, I was trying to give the analogy that I would cut him slack if he did, and that I would also cut him slack if he believed it was a 'just' war. Maybe I wasn't clear.

I really don't think Hannan is a war monger. I would hate for him to be pigeon-holed like that based on this interview. Unless, of course, someone can prove that he is. In which case, all bets are off, but I doubt he is. He's sounds to me like a genuine conservative.

[Deborah K]

I was asleep at the wheel at first too and I voted for bush the first time.

But in regards to the Iraq war, justified doesn't even fit into it. How about, is it "constitutional"? The "justified" aspect *should* be worked out during the process of congress declaring a war, constitutionally.

Of course they don't feel the need to do that:

I agree that declaring wars is of utmost importance. But first, Congress has to determine if they are justified. So, in my opinion, 'justified' does fit into it.

[tremendoustie]

For me it is a little more complicated than that. First of all, many converts on this forum alone, thought initially that invading Iraq was justified because of the lies we were all told by the gov't. If you are a pacifist and against all wars period, then there is no discussion. If, however, you believe in 'justified' war, the question then becomes: "who determines what is 'justified'?

I believe that Hannan stands for most of my principles. If he thought Iraq and the Gulf wars were justified and now he doesn't, then I am happy to cut him that slack. I don't think any of us can afford to be so stuck on our philosophies and principles that we can turn our backs on leaders who are getting our message out there. To me, that's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If we find that our chosen messengers to the sleeping are off track, it's our duty to get them back on track, not abandon them altogether. That makes no sense at all. We must do our best to enlighten before we decide to forsake.


Oh, sure, I'm not saying abandon him, or that he's our enemy. But, if he supports an interventionist foriegn policy, I can't say I consider him a decent spokesperson like I do Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Tom Woods, Stossil, or Nepolitano, to name a few.

If true, this kind of stance would put him in group B so to speak, with the likes of Glen Beck. That is, we're working on the guy, and he says some good things, but doesn't "get it" yet.

[sailor]

For me it is a little more complicated than that. First of all, many converts on this forum alone, thought initially that invading Iraq was justified because of the lies we were all told by the gov't.

Yes, but are the converts stil "grateful for what the US did in both Gulf wars"?