PDA

View Full Version : Walter Williams doesn't support Ron Pauls' foreign policy




Capitalism
07-31-2007, 10:24 AM
From September 16, 2002 (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/02/sissified2.html):


I have just as much sorrow for the victims and their families of last year's September 11th attack as any other American. Rather than last week's commemorative celebrations, emotional outpouring, not to mention political showboating, not doing anything publicly would have spoken volumes. But if we just had to do something to mark the occasion, we would have honored ourselves and the victims more by a full scale air and sea attack on Iraq.




From August 23, 2004 (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/04/appeasement.html):


President Bush's foreign-policy critics at home and abroad share characteristics and visions that have previously led to worldwide chaos and untold loss of lives. These people believe that negotiation, appeasement and caving in to the demands of vicious totalitarian leaders can produce good-faith behavior. Their vision not only has a long record of failure but devastating consequences.


and


What deters terrorists? We try to thwart them or kill them. What deters nations that might harbor or assist terrorist? We show them the kind of destruction we're prepared to rain down upon them. Whether we ultimately find nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in Iraq is one thing, but one clear message has been sent as a result of our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The world now knows, where it didn't know in the past, that we have the will to destroy a nation that supports terrorism. One measure of the benefit of that message is that Libya's Mohammar Qaddafi has decided to forgo his weapons program and Iran and North Korea might reconsider their agenda.


Some appeasers would like us to cut and run in the wake of terrorist threats just as Spain and the Philippines did. Others, especially our increasingly anti-Semitic European allies, would like us to be more "even-handed" in the Palestinian-Israel conflict. Even-handed might be translated as abandoning Israel. Such a move wouldn't bring any better results than when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain sold the Czechoslovakians down the river to Hitler.


There's no evidence that today's fanatical terrorists and their nation-state sympathizers have any taste for compromise and negotiation. They want Western submission, and they just might get that with presidential candidate John Kerry's promise that if elected he will wage "more sensitive war on terror."




From August 23, 2006 (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/defend.html):


Terrorist supporters know we have this capacity, but because of worldwide public opinion, which often appears to be on their side, coupled with our weak will, we'll never use it. Today's Americans are vastly different from those of my generation who fought the life-and-death struggle of World War II. Any attempt to annihilate our Middle East enemies would create all sorts of handwringing about the innocent lives lost, so-called collateral damage.

and



Anyone who thinks current Western appeasement efforts will get Iran to end its nuclear weapons program and end its desire to eliminate Israel is dumber than dumb. Appeasement will strengthen Iran's hand, and it looks as if the West, including the United States, is willing to be complicit in that strengthening.


Also see this blog post: Those opposed to nuclear annihilation are appeasers and guilty of "handwringing" (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/those-opposed-to-nuclear-annihilation.html)




I think we all know what Ron Paul believes in as far as foreign policy goes, so I won't spend any time explaining it again. The Ron Paul library would probably be a good place to start if you need more information about RP's foreign policy.

So two points:

Why does Walter Williams support Ron Paul for president? Yes, their views on economics are quite similar, but WW believes the views of RP on foreign policy are going to lead to America's destruction at the hands of Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, "the al-Qaeda" (as Paul like so say), Hezzbollah, or some other terrorist group. Certainly Williams would rather live in a nation with an unfree economy that is still fighting the threats he perceives to be important rather than a nation with a free economy that can't and won't defend itself and will surely be ravaged like Great Britain during WW II. (I am not saying I support his position at all; I am just trying to describe it.)
Why should Ron Paul supporters support Walter Williams for vice president given the obvious difference in their views? This isn't just some small difference of opinion, like whether the Department of Commerce should be fased out of existence in one year or two years. This is probably the most important issue for the presidency.

Capitalism
07-31-2007, 10:26 AM
BTW, I am sorry if this has already been addressed and I missed it.

ARealConservative
07-31-2007, 10:58 AM
There is a piece to Ron Paul's platform that peole forget about or atleast don't stress enough.

He is a constitutionalist and congress declares war. You can disagree with his views on foreign policy and still support the man - he will faithfully execute laws passed by congress - including a declaration of war.

Capitalism
07-31-2007, 11:21 AM
There is a piece to Ron Paul's platform that peole forget about or atleast don't stress enough.

He is a constitutionalist and congress declares war. You can disagree with his views on foreign policy and still support the man - he will faithfully execute laws passed by congress - including a declaration of war.

I don't mean to be rude, but that's a copout.

The president, whether we like it or not, is the most influential person in the US as far as foreign policy goes. How many times has Congress declared war when the POTUS didn't support it? ZERO.

Besides that, the manner in which Ron Paul, as commander in chief, would conduct a war would be much different than what Walter Williams has expressed support for. Ron Paul does care about killing innocent people; Walter Williams, despite holding the "sanctity of human life dear (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/07/rules.html)," calls this "handwringing." (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/defend.html) Basically, Walter Williams says that concern for innocent people in countries with whom we are at war will lead to far greater attacks.

ARealConservative
07-31-2007, 11:32 AM
I don't mean to be rude, but that's a copout.

The president, whether we like it or not, is the most influential person in the US as far as foreign policy goes. How many times has Congress declared war when the POTUS didn't support it? ZERO.

Besides that, the manner in which Ron Paul, as commander in chief, would conduct a war would be much different than what Walter Williams has expressed support for. Ron Paul does care about killing innocent people; Walter Williams, despite holding the "sanctity of human life dear (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/07/rules.html)," calls this "handwringing." (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/defend.html) Basically, Walter Williams says that concern for innocent people in countries with whom we are at war will lead to far greater attacks.

I'm sorry but you are clearly looking at this from the typical statist point of view. A constitutional president actually doesn't hold a great deal of power.

As for war, Ron Paul has an America First mentality. He will care far more about the loss of American life, then the lives of enemy civilians. He has said if you must go to war, you go to war to win. His views in this regard are very much in align with Barry Goldwater - who was painted as a war hawk.

LastoftheMohicans
07-31-2007, 11:54 AM
Williams, Sowell, Goldwater (Yes, Goldwater) and some in the Objectivism movement are basically free-market warmongers. Of course, they are trying to hold two contradictory positions. The market consists of all voluntary exchanges while war and preparation for war are basically socialistic/fascistic enterprises. For people like this, the free market at home will always be secondary to slaying some dragon overseas. They are not libertarians and they never were. And frankly, I'm tired of them giving the free-market a bad name.

Capitalism
07-31-2007, 11:58 AM
I'm sorry but you are clearly looking at this from the typical statist point of view. A constitutional president actually doesn't hold a great deal of power.

As for war, Ron Paul has an America First mentality. He will care far more about the loss of American life, then the lives of enemy civilians. He has said if you must go to war, you go to war to win. His views in this regard are very much in align with Barry Goldwater - who was painted as a war hawk.

It would seem to me that if you don't support a man's positions in Congress, you would not support him in the White House either. If there were a vocal group of Congressmen who wanted to declare war on Syria, certainly the public would look to President Ron Paul for his position. If RP were a popular president because all of his economic positions have made us a wealthier, freer nation, then RP's opposition to war in Syria would help sway opinion against the proposed war. If you view RP's opposition to such wars as dangerous to the republic, then you would not want Ron Paul elected as president.

Here is something RP said on the topic of killing innocents in war before the House on Sept. 25, 2001 (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr092501.htm):


I do not believe this can happen if we ignore the truth. We cannot close our eyes to the recent history that has brought us to this international crisis. We should guard against emotionally driven demands to kill many bystanders in an effort to liquidate our enemy. These efforts could well fail to punish the perpetrators while only expanding the war and making things worse by killing innocent non-combatants and further radicalizing Muslim peoples.

Capitalism
07-31-2007, 12:00 PM
Williams, Sowell, Goldwater (Yes, Goldwater) and some in the Objectivism movement are basically free-market warmongers. Of course, they are trying to hold two contradictory positions. The market consists of all voluntary exchanges while war and preparation for war are basically socialistic/fascistic enterprises. For people like this, the free market at home will always be secondary to slaying some dragon overseas. They are not libertarians and they never were. And frankly, I'm tired of them giving the free-market a bad name.

Thank you.

And this really pains me because I have close to a dozen books by Sowell on my bookshelf. I also used to follow Williams' writing closely. I even met him once at a Cato event.

trispear
07-31-2007, 12:02 PM
I agree with Ron Paul over Williams. Paul thinks war is necessary for self-defense. I do so too.

Preventative wars, that I don't believe in only because history has shown how poor the results are and how badly people do at predicting future events.
And this really pains me because I have close to a dozen books by Sowell on my bookshelf. I also used to follow Williams' writing closely. I even met him once at a Cato event.No one is perfect or will have positions we all agree on. I think the really disgusting thing of politics lately is to marginalize anyone we disagree with as an idiot, right-wing nut, liberal, or any other of a half dozen names. This has always been an element in politics, but Rush/Hannity/Bush/Rove&Co really carried it to a new league, and so do their followers.

Paul works with Dennis Kucinich. Those two can agree on Iraq but are radically different in economic respects. Still, Paul has recommended Kucinich as a candidate to look at in New Hampshire's "Conversation with a Candidate" when asked which others candidates he thinks are decent. I happen to agree with Paul, but I feel Kucinich is a decent, honorable person and I would vote for him above Guiliani, Fred Thompson, Clinton, and so on and so forth. Ron Paul has become my model for dealing with others:)

FSP-Rebel
07-31-2007, 12:04 PM
Does anyone know AK Governor Sarah Palin's take on foreign policy? Cause, up til now, she's my favorite pick for VP

Capitalism
07-31-2007, 12:17 PM
Does anyone know why this thread was moved to the general politics board but this thread all about Walter Williams (http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=9781) and less about Ron Paul was not? There have been numerous threads about possible VP candidates on the RP news & discussion board that were never moved.

ARealConservative
07-31-2007, 12:35 PM
Williams, Sowell, Goldwater (Yes, Goldwater) and some in the Objectivism movement are basically free-market warmongers. Of course, they are trying to hold two contradictory positions. The market consists of all voluntary exchanges while war and preparation for war are basically socialistic/fascistic enterprises. For people like this, the free market at home will always be secondary to slaying some dragon overseas. They are not libertarians and they never were. And frankly, I'm tired of them giving the free-market a bad name.


Good thing this isn't a libertarian movement.


Libertarians can join us of course, but they aren't steering the ship.

Shink
07-31-2007, 12:39 PM
Okay, I know all I need to know about Walter Williams now to know I wouldn't support him at all. Can someone clue me in to someone who DOES agree with Dr. Paul on all relevant (money, economy, civil liberties, WAR) issues? I'd like to know who the viable VP candidates are, and perhaps some outlines of their stances.

ARealConservative
07-31-2007, 12:43 PM
Okay, I know all I need to know about Walter Williams now to know I wouldn't support him at all. Can someone clue me in to someone who DOES agree with Dr. Paul on all relevant (money, economy, civil liberties, WAR) issues? I'd like to know who the viable VP candidates are, and perhaps some outlines of their stances.

Getting a clone of Dr. Paul as VP does nothing to balance the ticket.

Capitalism
07-31-2007, 12:55 PM
Andre Marrou!



just kidding!

Nefertiti
07-31-2007, 01:08 PM
Pat Buchanan supports him although he has a very different view on economics. Pat Buchanan would have us slapping massive tariffs on Japan and China. I have to admit I am more attracted to Buchanan's economic views but I still like RP on most other things.

kylejack
07-31-2007, 02:50 PM
Vice presidents often hold drastically different views on various issues, but they keep their mouths shut on those issues in deference to the President. The value of Williams would be to deploy him to the media outlets to provide a very cogent and effective defense of the FUD that would surely be spread about Ron Paul's economic policies. And BOY would I love to see him debate Obama in a VP debate. Seeing an intelligent civilized debate like those two would provide would be so refreshing.

Brandybuck
07-31-2007, 11:15 PM
Why does Walter Williams support Ron Paul for president?
Because their policy views are identical in all respects expect for foreign policy. I spent a few years myself on the side of the Iraq interventionists (until I wised up), but still supported Ron Paul.


Why should Ron Paul supporters support Walter Williams for vice president given the obvious difference in their views?
It's up to Ron Paul to choose his vice presidential candidate. If it's Walter Williams, then I will support him 100%. But even if he doesn't get the nod, I'll still be a fan of Williams, because he is a good man.

trispear
08-01-2007, 10:38 AM
I don't mean to be rude, but that's a copout.

The president, whether we like it or not, is the most influential person in the US as far as foreign policy goes. How many times has Congress declared war when the POTUS didn't support it? ZERO.

“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.”
- James Madison, 4th US President

Capitalism
08-01-2007, 11:17 AM
“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.”
- James Madison, 4th US President

That is nice that Mr. Madison said that, but that hasn't been the case for a really long time. Do you think Paul should drop opposition to war from his campaign?

Capitalism
08-01-2007, 11:20 AM
Because their policy views are identical in all respects expect for foreign policy. I spent a few years myself on the side of the Iraq interventionists (until I wised up), but still supported Ron Paul.


It's up to Ron Paul to choose his vice presidential candidate. If it's Walter Williams, then I will support him 100%. But even if he doesn't get the nod, I'll still be a fan of Williams, because he is a good man.

Foreign policy is a HUGE issue. I still don't see why someone who thinks non-interventionism will lead to our annihilation would want to support a non-interventionist, regardless of any other similarities. For example, Neal Boortz doesn't support RP because of foreign policy, even though their domestic policy is nearly identical.

Not that I am complaining about his support.

And yes, I will support RP regardless of the VP.

Brandybuck
08-01-2007, 03:08 PM
Foreign policy is a HUGE issue.
Yes it is. But things aren't quite to black and white as some people make it out. For the first time we have a disperse non-state enemy. How do you fight that? Should you fight that? Was invading Iraq a defensive act?

I answer no to the latter question, but I do understand people who disagree with me. If I were told that my neighbor was building a bomb and was going to murder my family with it, I would bomb him first without hesitation! The problem with Iraq is that we were given the wrong information.

My problem is not so much with people who say "better to fight them there than over here", but with people like Dondero who say "fight them there so we can create buffer zones and pseudo-democratic states and secure resources." The former is mere muddle headed thinking, while the latter knowingly advocates offensive intervention.

trispear
08-01-2007, 03:19 PM
That is nice that Mr. Madison said that, but that hasn't been the case for a really long time. Do you think Paul should drop opposition to war from his campaign?

Then Ron Paul wouldn't be who he is (principled), would not have attracted his crowd that he did including me, and his campaign would be down the drain. You are asking him to drop his biggest asset, which none of the other politicians have.

What happens comes September and General Petraeus has no good news to report? You know, what all the neo-cons over at hannity.com are telling us noninterventionists to wait with baited breaths for.

Capitalism
08-01-2007, 03:50 PM
Then Ron Paul wouldn't be who he is (principled), would not have attracted his crowd that he did including me, and his campaign would be down the drain. You are asking him to drop his biggest asset, which none of the other politicians have.

What happens comes September and General Petraeus has no good news to report? You know, what all the neo-cons over at hannity.com are telling us noninterventionists to wait with baited breaths for.

You quoted Madison, who said the executive should stay out of the decision whether to go to war. I asked if RP should stay silent about opposition to the war. You said no. SO, I am thinking you don't agree fully with Madison, which is fine. It just goes to prove my point that the executive's opinion does matter.

trispear
08-01-2007, 05:42 PM
I don't quite follow your reasoning, sorry. We may be talking over each other.

Brandybuck
08-01-2007, 05:58 PM
What happens comes September and General Petraeus has no good news to report?
I made a post on the other forum on that question and got shit all over for doing it. I hope you guys are more enlightened. Here goes: Our opposition to the war has nothing to do with its winnability. Whether we win or lose, we shouldn't have gone over there in the first place. We won WWI, but it was still an immoral war. We won the Korean War, but it was still an immoral war. And if we get lucky and Petraeus declares good news, it will still be an immoral war.

All of the Democrats, and far too many libertarians, are betting their moral high ground on the unwinnability of Iraq.

Capitalism
08-01-2007, 07:16 PM
I made a post on the other forum on that question and got shit all over for doing it. I hope you guys are more enlightened. Here goes: Our opposition to the war has nothing to do with its winnability. Whether we win or lose, we shouldn't have gone over there in the first place. We won WWI, but it was still an immoral war. We won the Korean War, but it was still an immoral war. And if we get lucky and Petraeus declares good news, it will still be an immoral war.

All of the Democrats, and far too many libertarians, are betting their moral high ground on the unwinnability of Iraq.

Agreed.

Capitalism
08-01-2007, 07:18 PM
Yes it is. But things aren't quite to black and white as some people make it out. For the first time we have a disperse non-state enemy. How do you fight that? Should you fight that? Was invading Iraq a defensive act?

I answer no to the latter question, but I do understand people who disagree with me. If I were told that my neighbor was building a bomb and was going to murder my family with it, I would bomb him first without hesitation! The problem with Iraq is that we were given the wrong information.

My problem is not so much with people who say "better to fight them there than over here", but with people like Dondero who say "fight them there so we can create buffer zones and pseudo-democratic states and secure resources." The former is mere muddle headed thinking, while the latter knowingly advocates offensive intervention.

Let me be as brief as possible. Walter Williams thinks not going to war in Iraq would have resulted in America's destruction. How does he support someone opposed to the war in Iraq for president?

trispear
08-02-2007, 03:55 AM
We won the Korean War, but it was still an immoral war.Korea could be considered more of a stalemate, depending how you look at it -- considering that we got all the way to the Chinese border and then pushed back. Neither side reached the goal that it wanted but the Chinese continued their influence over NK and protected their own border, the Americans stopped the spread of Communism, the S. Koreans kept their land, and, well, N. Korea stayed where they began -- pretty much like everyone else.

Captain Shays
08-02-2007, 08:44 AM
Yes it is. But things aren't quite to black and white as some people make it out. For the first time we have a disperse non-state enemy. How do you fight that? Should you fight that? Was invading Iraq a defensive act?

I answer no to the latter question, but I do understand people who disagree with me. If I were told that my neighbor was building a bomb and was going to murder my family with it, I would bomb him first without hesitation! The problem with Iraq is that we were given the wrong information.

My problem is not so much with people who say "better to fight them there than over here", but with people like Dondero who say "fight them there so we can create buffer zones and pseudo-democratic states and secure resources." The former is mere muddle headed thinking, while the latter knowingly advocates offensive intervention.

(Captain Shays) If you go to your neighbor's house and bomb it with his entire family in there its murder plain and simple. Countries can't do what individuals cannot do. If you bombed your neighbors house in this country, you would spend the rest of your life in jail and deservedly so.

Ron Paul is no pacifist by any means but he's no war monger either. If Congress declared war, Ron Paul would use ALL means at his disposal as Comander in Chief to win the war. Remember this always. We have a civilian government. Our president is not the Comander in Chief until Congress declares war. He is elected a civilian president, not a military president because we do not have a military government until Congress declares war.
It doesn't matter to me what presidents fo the past or what Congresses fo the past have done or have not done especially if it violated our Constitution or flew in the face of the advice of our founding fathers. It was wrong then, and wrong now and we need to think like the founding fathers in order to understand them so that we can communicate this to the people we're trying to convince to vote for Ron Paul.
It's not as difficult as you may think. We Americans are influenced more strongly by our roots than we may know. When I talk to people whether Deomcrat or Republican or Independent, they inherently know that we don't benefit by meddling ni the affairs of other countries. None of us want to sacrifice our son or daughter for _____ cause that has nothing to do with our country, our freedom or our borders. ANY adult that was old enough to remember Vitnam or Korea or Somolia knows that we should have kept our boys home then, and in the future.

We don't need to be convinced to fight for the right cause either. Remember after 911? Every house on my street had a flag on the porch. Every car had one in their window. We were ready to go get bin Laden and anyone who supported him.
But now, every day we hear all the war monger talking heads trying to convince us why we should be in Iraq just like they did when they tried to convince us to be in Vietnam.
Remember Richard Read the shoe bomber on that plane? You know thatt he passengers on that plane stopped him. Old ladies were beating over the head with their purses while men tied him up with their belts. After 911, old men and young boys, including myself tried to join the military to go fight. Now if they called me I would go to a neutral country and bring my whole family including my three military aged children. Why? Because its not a just war and there is no convincing me that it is. I'm just like most people.

Captain Shays
08-02-2007, 08:47 AM
BTW, We also need to enlighten people about the idea of "winning" this "war". The concept of "winning" is as elusive and ill-defined as our reasons for going in there. We need to turn them onto Ron Paul's analogy of the wrong diagnosis and the wrong treatment instead.
If we cannot define winning then they cannot define losing.