About This Blog

Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) was the greatest economist of my time. His greatest works can be accessed here at no charge.

Mises believed that property, freedom and peace are and should be the hallmarks of a satisfying and prosperous society. I agree. Mises proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the prospect for general and individual prosperity is maximized, indeed, is only possible, if the principle of private property reigns supreme. What's yours is yours. What's mine is mine. When the line between yours and mine is smudged, the door to conflict opens. Without freedom (individual liberty of action) the principle of private property is neutered and the free market, which is the child of property and freedom and the mother of prosperity and satisfaction, cannot exist. Peace is the goal of a prosperous and satisfying society of free individuals, not peace which is purchased by submission to the enemies of property and freedom, but peace which results from the unyielding defense of these principles against all who challenge them.

In this blog I measure American society against the metrics of property, freedom and peace.

Sunday, January 8, 2012

And They Say Ron Paul Is Nuts!!!!

In last night's debate in New Hampshire, all the candidates told the voters what they would do with regard to the Middle East.

Rick Perry said: "I would send troops back into Iraq."

How nuts is that?!

Mitt Romney said: "I would bring our troops home [from Afghanistan] as soon as we possibly can." He said it three times, as if he thought it might make sense the more he said it.

How nuts is that?! It's like saying the check's in the mail. Does
he think we're stupid? Apparently, he does.

Newt Gingrich was his usual space-cadet self. He said that "we need a fundamentally new strategy for the region comparable to what we developed to fight the cold war."

Say what? What the hell does that mean?

Did you ever notice how often Newt says "fundamentally?" Every problem in the world has to be "fundamentally" rethought because it's been "fundamentally" mishandled by a "fundamentally" flawed administration. Give me a break!

Newt, how's this? If you ever give an answer that fundamentally makes sense, then I'll fundamentally cast a vote for your fundamentally convoluted little ass.

And Rick Santorum! When Jon Huntsman asked him how long he would wait to pull troops out of Afghanistan, Santorum answered: "Until the security of our country is ensured."

Are you kidding me? He might as well have said: "Until the cows come home!" Or maybe he should have said: "Until Janet Napolitano's successor decides to stop strip searching 90 year old grandmas in wheelchairs at TSA checkpoints!"

Talk about nuts!

At least Jon Huntsman seemed to make sense. He said: "I believe it’s time to come home. And I would say within the first year of my administration, which is to say the end of 2013, I would want to draw them [our troops in Afghanistan] down."

The trouble is Huntsman kept talking. He said of course he wouldn't draw down all the troops. He'd have to leave behind "maybe 10,000 troops for intelligence gathering, for Special Forces rapid response capability and training."

Whoa! Didn't he just say it's time to come home? It sounds to me like he's decided the US is going to stay in Afghanistan. Is Huntsman nuts? Or is it just me?

But Huntsman wasn't through yet. He kept talking. He decided to list the US accomplishments in Afghanistan: "We have strengthened civil society. We’ve helped the military. We’ve helped the police."

What's wrong with that? I'll tell you what's wrong with that.

In the next breath he said: "I think civil war is around the corner in Afghanistan."

Is this man awake? Or just confused? Or does he too think we're stupid?

But wait! Huntsman wasn't finished. He added: "And I don’t want to be the president who invests another penny in a civil war. And I don’t want to be the president who sends another man or woman into harm’s way."

Well, I guess the moron is technically correct. He wouldn't be sending another man or woman into harm's way if 10,000 of them are still there when the civil war starts!!!! 

Good God!

Now let's consider Ron Paul's position on Afghanistan: Get the hell out!

And what did we accomplish by spending 10 years at war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Paul answered that question earlier in the debate:
We have hundreds of thousands coming back from these wars that were undeclared, they were unnecessary, they haven’t been won, they’re unwinnable, and we have hundreds of thousands looking for care. And we have an epidemic of suicide coming back. And so many have -- I mean, if you add up all the contractors and all the wars going on, Afghanistan and in Iraq, we’ve lost 8,500 Americans, and severe injuries, over 40,000. And these are undeclared war.

And then he added:
But, you know, this business about when to go in [to war], I don’t think it’s that complicated. I think we’ve made it much more complicated than it should be. Yes, the president is the commander-in-chief, but he’s not the king. And that’s why we fought a revolution, not to have a king and decide when we go to war.
We would have saved ourselves a lot of grief if we only had gone to war in a proper manner, and the proper manner is the people elect congressmen and senators to make a declaration of war, and then we become the commander-in-chief, and we make these decisions.

Now you tell me, dear reader. Which one of these Republican candidates is nuts?

No comments: