A Dangerous Myth: Peter Schiff Advocates a Neocon Foreign Policy

[psi2941]

OKKKK lets say! he wants to bomb iran and send in troops (he just wants to bomb them) but!! do you really think the other canidates will be better?

 

[devil21]

OKKKK lets say! he wants to bomb iran and send in troops (he just wants to bomb them) but!! do you really think the other canidates will be better?

Lesser of two evils argument is generally rejected around here. See: McCain 2008.

 

[Bman]

Blah blah blah. Just like Stein's comments. Non-intervention = racism, right?

Way to change the subject. It must suck to admit you were flat out wrong. I called it on you and now you run for the hills. Priceless.

An open-ended query is not the same as an assertion.

Whatever you want to say. I've been here for a while. I know plenty of the comments made by some people. We can all pretend all we want that these people are advocates for liberty, but we'd only be lying to ourselves.

The person I repsonded to has called every Jewish politician a Zionist. You think it's not damn clear where they stand on racism. You're being a fool.

 

[devil21]

Way to change the subject. It must suck to admit you were flat out wrong. I called it on you and now you run for the hills. Priceless.

How was I wrong? Gotta be a little more specific. Your posts are way too vague. Im just calling a spade a spade bro. Zionist is not a racist term and I understand what tones was asking and frankly, it's never been asked before that I'm aware of. Zionist is not a racist term, never has been, never will be, and that won't change no matter how much you want it to. Joe Biden called himself a Zionist. Was he racially slurring himself?

Whatever you want to say. I've been here for a while. I know plenty of the comments made by some people. We can all pretend all we want that these people are advocates for liberty, but we'd only be lying to ourselves.

More vaguaries. How about you just come out and say what it is your dying to say instead of beating around the bush with these empty "wink wink nudge nudge" type posts?

The person I repsonded to has called every Jewish politician a Zionist. You think it's not damn clear where they stand on racism. You're being a fool.

Again, Zionist is not a racist term. A Zionist is a person, usually Jewish but not always, that believes first and foremost in Jews having the right to a Jewish state as part of a larger religious agenda. The ramifications to Americans (regardless of religious affiliation) of that larger agenda is why it is a valid query and why it is pertinent to the platform of prospective politicians. I don't get why you insist on referring to mention of the word "Zionist" as a racist term. It is not.

It's like the mere words Zionist or Jew have become a completely taboo term on par with the n-word. Neither term has ever been considered a slur so why is it treated like one now?

 

[G-Wohl]

You still didn't explain how Iran attacked America. If you respected the notion of national sovereignty, you would support the right of the Iranians to have control over their own natural resources. Sorry, throwing out BP isn't attacking America. Our CIA took out Mossadegh at the behest of BP, and Iran has rightfully been a hotbed of Anti American sentiment ever since. We took control of their oil from them and established a Dictatorship. America has been the one attacking Iran. Barbarism is going around the world toppling governments for the behest of corporate interests. Iranians wanting control of their own resources is logical, not barbarous. British Petroleum has nothing to do with the American people, they don't represent us, so stop using words like "our"

I respect the national sovereignty of any nation whose citizens sanction a capitalist government. That, obviously, is not the country of Iran.

The Iranians had oil under their toes for centuries and didn't know what to do with it, or how to mine it. It was the western nations that were able to finally achieve something productive with it, and surely, you understand that several US firms were involved with BP's activity over there pre-Mossadeqh. It may have been called British Petroleum, but there were many Americans involved with their activities, who contributed to the funding and the intellectual development of the Iranian oil industry.

We took out Mossadeqh because, for some reason, we thought that was going to solve the problem of the Iranians nationalizing the industry that we made for them. Remember that the west operated the oil industry in Iran, and the west employed Iranians to work the fields. By contract, they were never the owners of those operations. The Iranians took over the oil industry there by force, thinking for some reason that they were entitled to the west's productive achievement. That's an attack against all individuals who financed and operated the oil activity in that country. Several of those attacked were American.

I do not advocate interventionism, so I do not support the CIA overthrowing Mossadeqh. We should have been much tougher with the Iranians, and never allowed them to nationalize the work of the west without a fight. If they believe that they are entitled to the productive achievements of others at the discretion of their whims, then they clearly do not understand the capitalist ethic, nor contractual obligation.

 

[G-Wohl]

LOL, you seriously believe that? So you're saying that if Bush had just dropped our nuclear arsenal on the entire middle east that there wouldn't be anyone left to blow us up and therefore nuking 10% of the land mass of the planet would have been a good idea? Wow. I guess I can't say anything that would counter that sort of pure insanity.

If Bush dropped our nuclear arsenal on the entire ME, it would have destroyed any chance of regaining the strength we used to have in that region. I would never advocate that, nor did I say that in my post. This is a foolish attempt to put words in my mouth.

Terrorist groups and factions make up a tiny percentage of the entire ME. Special forces and tactical strikes could easily take out all terrorist threats, but unfortunately our government is so huge and bureaucratic that such simple precision is not possible. The neocons try to gain support for these invasions that we engage in now by claiming we have a responsible to be altruistic towards other undeserving nations, but as we know this is a complete fallacy and totally self-destructive.

Actually it's quite simple. Don't attack people that haven't harmed you. That's non-intervention foreign policy in a nutshell. All the posturing about military-this or tactic-that serves no purpose other than to obfuscate that very basic rule of non-intervention. Iran is not a threat to the US and I'm sorry but anyone that believes otherwise isn't viewing the issue objectively. They barely have the capability to defend themselves against their own neighbors. Besides, I'm not even clear on what you mean by "confusing non-interventionism with preemptive tactics". How does one confuse those? They're polar opposites.

The Iranians nationalized an industry that others designed for them, and broke several contractual agreements to do so. They harmed American interests in a very severe way.

I won't answer your claim about the Iranian threat to the US, because others have already done so. The regime makes threats against the US constantly and is a state-sponsor of terrorism.

Non-interventionism means to stay out of the affairs of other nations that haven't harmed you. Preemptive tactics involves striking first so that no harm can be done to us. The latter would be quite a rational tactic in many circumstances, particularly if we find that Iran is developing nuclear weaponry. A country can engage in preemptive warfare and still be a non-interventionist country.

Do we really need to revisit the history of the whole British oil empire in Iran, the CIA overthrowing the democratic gov't of Iran, the hostage situation, etc? That would be an exercise is revisiting how interventionism fails and leads to blowback and unintended consequences. I'm not saying Iran is a perfect nation (all religiously motivated governments, ours included, are inherently flawed) but claiming that Iran "harmed" the US by throwing out the British crown over their vast oil reserves 60 years ago, which somehow makes us bombing them today acceptable, is just grasping at straws. Would there be a religious government in Iran today if not for the CIA? It's a much deeper issue than you are implying.

Obviously, we do, if you think that we had no right to protect western interests. The Iranian oil reserves were not owned by Iran - they were contractually operated and financed by British Petroleum and their financiers. Mossadeqh nationalized an industry that the Iranians had no claim to. They had oil under their feet for centuries and couldn't make use of it. BP stepped in and capitalized on this industry, and employed Iranians in doing so. Iran had no claim to that oil or that industry because it wasn't theirs to begin with.

So you just advocate bombing more civilians in ANOTHER country (what's that, 6 countries now?), spending more money we don't have, and making more enemies around the world, which leads to more terrorism that makes Americans less safe. But whatever you do, don't rebuild it! Yeah that's sound foreign policy right there. Can't argue with that kind of logic Then again, our reputation around the world is now total shit so what do we have to lose...

We should have tried that sooner since it's so much different than our current interventionist foreign policy.

I don't advocate bombing civilians, nor do I advocate spending money we don't have. Why are you trying to paint my views so viciously, when I haven't made any claim even close to that?

In a capitalist society, our military would be swift and efficient enough to take out any threat, and the only enemies we would have would be irrational aggressors like the Iranians, who wouldn't have any power to even threaten us as they do now. Our altruistic foreign policy of nation-building (as opposed to swift and tactical defense) empowers our enemies and weakens our defenses. We have no responsibility to anybody but ourselves, so the only reason we'd ever have to attack a country is if American blood and/or treasure is at stake. This country has the ability to take out any threat posed against us, but not at its present state. A century of foolish economic policies and altruistic foreign affairs has led to the pitiful downfall of American might, which has brought about the perceived dangers of capitalism that most people espouse today. As Ayn Rand famously said, the evils of the world only exist if they are sanctioned by others. We have sanctioned evil for far too long.

You must question your premises, as you'd find that there is a logical path to discovering why the pacifist foreign policy you're advocating is just as destructive and dangerous to American lives as the nation-building foreign policy we engage in presently.

 

[purplechoe]

I do not advocate interventionism, so I do not support the CIA overthrowing Mossadeqh. We should have been much tougher with the Iranians, and never allowed them to nationalize the work of the west without a fight. If they believe that they are entitled to the productive achievements of others at the discretion of their whims, then they clearly do not understand the capitalist ethic, nor contractual obligation.

Here comes that neocon sentiment again, (how many contracts did the US government break in just the past year?) do what we say or we will bomb you. It was their resource. Where the fuck do you get off telling others what is best for them at the barrel of a gun? With liberty lovers like you, who needs socialists/ fasicists? Are you sure you're in the right forum? This isn't a hannityforum or hotair.com...

PS. You're not as intelligent as you think you are.

 

[Bman]

It's like the mere words Zionist or Jew have become a completely taboo term on par with the n-word. Neither term has ever been considered a slur so why is it treated like one now?

Who said what plays a large portion of intent and meaning. I'm calling a spade a spade. If you disagree more power to you. The problem here is you are attacking me for calling someone something because they called someone else something, then you want to join in and make it a three way by calling me something. You have no high ground here. What I find remarkable is that the term zionist was used, and not neo-con. Maybe you'd like to tell me why it wasn't? Oh that's right it's because Schiff is Jewish. Some may want to be naive and some may pretend like it's all ok, but the simple fact is that there are plenty of people here who are flat out racist and I find it disgusting. If you want me to be quiet and let these type of people just go around making comments bashing anyone whenever they want without being called out for who and what they are then go pound sand, it's not going to happen.

 

[G-Wohl]

Here comes that neocon sentiment again, (how many contracts did the US government break in just the past year?) do what we say or we will bomb you. It was their resource. Where the fuck do you get off telling others what is best for them at the barrel of a gun? With liberty lovers like you, who needs socialists/ fasicists? Are you sure you're in the right forum? This isn't a hannityforum or hotair.com...

PS. You're not as intelligent as you think you are.

You can't call anybody who you perceive as being incorrect a neoconservative. There's a pretty hard and clear definition of neoconservatism, and a quick look at its Wikipedia page would be sufficient enough to disprove your claim.

I'm sure the US is guilty of all sorts of contractual fraud and error. In fact, I know for a fact that the US hardly respects contractual obligation anymore. But that doesn't change reality - that doesn't change what's right. (Back when US citizens were engaged in BP's efforts in Iran, by the way, we were a much different country).

No, the oil was not their resource. They didn't mine it, they didn't possess the intelligence to understand its use, and they signed contracts saying that the west's productive achievement belonged to the west - nobody else. Just because the oil was in Iran doesn't make it Iranian property. If contracts mean nothing, then capitalism cannot function. The fact that you even recognize the "sovereignty" of Iran tells me that you haven't a clue as to what legitimizes a nation. You should read Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (a book recommended on Peter's website, by the way) and understand why whim-worshiping is a terrible way to enforce laissez-faire.

I don't say what's best for anybody but myself and, by extension, my country. You can put words in my mouth all you want, but you can't revise my words. I do not suggest that I know what's best for Iran - that's why I'm a non-interventionist. I know what's best for the US, and for that reason, I know that your intelligence claim is quite the contrary: you don't even possess the intelligence to thoughtfully and properly read what I write. If you cannot give me a good reason as to why we should simply "accept" that the Iranians broke a contract, and that they nationalized what wasn't rightfully theirs, then please don't bother responding to me.

 

[devil21]

I won't answer your claim about the Iranian threat to the US, because others have already done so. The regime makes threats against the US constantly and is a state-sponsor of terrorism.

So you can't provide any examples. Just broad brush strokes of rhetoric. Then again I don't speak Farsi and I assume you do not either.

Non-interventionism means to stay out of the affairs of other nations that haven't harmed you. Preemptive tactics involves striking first so that no harm can be done to us. The latter would be quite a rational tactic in many circumstances, particularly if we find that Iran is developing nuclear weaponry. A country can engage in preemptive warfare and still be a non-interventionist country.

Again, please provide any evidence whatsoever that Iran is a threat to the US and that US security is threatened by Iran having nukes. Examples please, not rhetoric.

Obviously, we do, if you think that we had no right to protect western interests. The Iranian oil reserves were not owned by Iran - they were contractually operated and financed by British Petroleum and their financiers. Mossadeqh nationalized an industry that the Iranians had no claim to. They had oil under their feet for centuries and couldn't make use of it. BP stepped in and capitalized on this industry, and employed Iranians in doing so. Iran had no claim to that oil or that industry because it wasn't theirs to begin with.

Something that happened 60 years ago is not justification for action today. If it was then Israel should be attacked for the USS Liberty incident. It's grasping at straws for any justification. You're letting your neo-con flag fly in your posts by dragging that up as justification for action today.

I don't advocate bombing civilians, nor do I advocate spending money we don't have. Why are you trying to paint my views so viciously, when I haven't made any claim even close to that?

They're your words, not mine. The reader of your posts can draw their own conclusions on what you advocate.

In a capitalist society, our military would be swift and efficient enough to take out any threat, and the only enemies we would have would be irrational aggressors like the Iranians, who wouldn't have any power to even threaten us as they do now. Our altruistic foreign policy of nation-building (as opposed to swift and tactical defense) empowers our enemies and weakens our defenses. We have no responsibility to anybody but ourselves, so the only reason we'd ever have to attack a country is if American blood and/or treasure is at stake. This country has the ability to take out any threat posed against us, but not at its present state. A century of foolish economic policies and altruistic foreign affairs has led to the pitiful downfall of American might, which has brought about the perceived dangers of capitalism that most people espouse today. As Ayn Rand famously said, the evils of the world only exist if they are sanctioned by others. We have sanctioned evil for far too long.

I agree with some of this, particularly the failure of nation building and massive foreign aid, however pre-emptively bombing other nations that "may" do something isn't looked upon kindly by history. And that's if you trust the people telling you what the other country "may" do (which I do not....our gov't is full of liars and they prove this repeatedly).

Was Pearl Harbor a justified attack? Either you must say yes or you're a hypocrite. Japan thought the same thing you do about pre-emptive strikes. Was Pearl Harbor a justifiable attack?

The US become a superpower admired, yet feared, using the mantra of "Walk softly but carry a big stick". Your view appears to be "Swing the stick at whatever moves and damn the consequences". You should probably try a little harder to keep the neo-con rhetoric low key. It sticks out like a sore thumb here.

 

[devil21]

Who said what plays a large portion of intent and meaning. I'm calling a spade a spade. If you disagree more power to you. The problem here is you are attacking me for calling someone something because they called someone else something, then you want to join in and make it a three way by calling me something. You have no high ground here. What I find remarkable is that the term zionist was used, and not neo-con. Maybe you'd like to tell me why it wasn't? Oh that's right it's because Schiff is Jewish. Some may want to be naive and some may pretend like it's all ok, but the simple fact is that there are plenty of people here who are flat out racist and I find it disgusting. If you want me to be quiet and let these type of people just go around making comments bashing anyone whenever they want without being called out for who and what they are then go pound sand, it's not going to happen.

So it's ok for you to assume what someone else means but not ok to assume what you mean. Nice double standard you have there.

I can't speak for tones and that was not my intent. You simply label people that use the term "Zionist" as racist and that is inaccurate and unfair and attempts to paint anyone that questions Zionism and it's role in US politics as being a racist. Maybe that's not your intent but that is what it does. I think you know that it does though.

This is why your comments are no better than Ben Stein's. Once again, the term is not racist and never has been. Maybe you have a beef with tones (and if so, that's for PM) but you're basically labelling everyone that questions Zionism as racist, which is simply not true. Some of us want to know whether a particular politician is representing the US or representing Israel. They can't do both.

 

[Bman]

So it's ok for you to assume what someone else means but not ok to assume what you mean. Nice double standard you have there.

I can't speak for tones and that was not my intent. You simply label people that use the term "Zionist" as racist and that is inaccurate and unfair and attempts to paint anyone that questions Zionism and it's role in US politics as being a racist. Maybe that's not your intent but that is what it does. I think you know that it does though.

This is why your comments are no better than Ben Stein's. Once again, the term is not racist and never has been. Maybe you have a beef with tones (and if so, that's for PM) but you're basically labelling everyone that questions Zionism as racist, which is simply not true. Some of us want to know whether a particular politician is representing the US or representing Israel. They can't do both.

I didn't simply do anything. Do a little search on how many people and how many times Tones has done things like this. You think that I just assume? If that was the case I would have assumed the first time it was done. It's got to stop. Again if you think I have errored think what you want, but don't forget to keep pounding sand.

 

[malkusm]

Can we split some of this thread into the Philosophy forum? I feel like it takes away from the point of this thread. Namely, that Schiff in no way "advocates a neocon foreign policy."

 

[devil21]

I didn't simply do anything. Do a little search on how many people and how many times Tones has done things like this. You think that I just assume? If that was the case I would have assumed the first time it was done. It's got to stop. Again if you think I have errored think what you want, but don't forget to keep pounding sand.

Done things like what? Ask if a politician may be a Zionist? BFD. You should probably change your tampon if you're that easily offended. The reason it is asked is because we're very aware of how heavily the Zionist influence has gotten into our government.

Do you think Michael Scheuer is a racist too?
http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=13139

Now that the dust has settled in the spat between journalist Joe Klein and the ideologues at Commentary, it is time to regret the ink spilled over the non-issue of "dual loyalties." The idea that there are U.S. citizens who have equal loyalties to the United States and Israel is passé. American Israel-firsters have long since dropped any pretense of loyalty to the United States and its genuine national interests. They have moved brazenly into the Israel first, last, and always camp. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Norman Podhoretz, Victor Davis Hanson, the Rev. Franklin Graham, Alan Dershowitz, Rudy Giuliani, Douglas Feith, the Rev. Rod Parsley, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, Bill Kristol, the Rev. John Hagee, and the thousands of wealthy supporters of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) appear to care about the United States only so far as Washington is willing to provide immense, unending funding and the lives of young U.S. service personnel to protect Israel. These individuals and their all-for-Israel journals – Commentary, National Review, the Weekly Standard, and the Wall Street Journal – amount to nothing less than a fifth column intent on involving 300 million Americans in other peoples' religious wars, making them pay and bleed to protect a nation in which the United States has no genuine national security interest at stake.

more at link, good article

So considering the known influence of Israel-firsters, aka Zionists, why is it racist to question whether a potential politician is indeed a Zionist? Answer that one single question please. The query itself is not racist at all. Why you insist on claiming racism over it makes no sense to me. That only furthers the propaganda that makes Zionist influence "untouchable" in the public dialogue.

 

[Bman]

So considering the known influence of Israel-firsters, aka Zionists, why is it racist to question whether a potential politician is indeed a Zionist?

/sigh.

My comment was not direct towards the word Zionist. Feel free to use it, but when you use it as a racist remark it will still be determined to be racist.

Think for a second. Why in a thread that is labeled neo-con did the person decide to use Zionist? Are you seriously going to try and keep telling me they didn't use it as a racial device? Come on man. I think it is quite obvious what I meant and to whom I meant it. I'm not easily offended. I'm just terribly annoyed that you're missing the point.

Go ahead prove to me Tones isn't racist. Find we one thread that shows it. Can't be done.

 

[devil21]

/sigh.

My comment was not direct towards the word Zionist. Feel free to use it, but when you use it as a racist remark it will still be determined to be racist.

So it's who uses the word that you take offense to. But then claim there's lots of racists on RPF because they use the word too.

Think for a second. Why in a thread that is labeled neo-con did the person decide to use Zionist? Are you seriously going to try and keep telling me they didn't use it as a racial device? Come on man. I think it is quite obvious what I meant and to whom I meant it. I'm not easily offended. I'm just terribly annoyed that you're missing the point.

Because the terms are nearly interchangable these days. Neo-cons are only concerned with foreign policy that revolves around protecting Israel, under the guise of protecting the US. Sounds a lot like an American Zionist to me. So your point was that no one should question whether Schiff is a Zionist, just in case you don't like that particular poster. Gotcha. We'll be sure to check with you first before we exercise our freedom of expression.

Go ahead prove to me Tones isn't racist. Find we one thread that shows it. Can't be done.

Im afraid you're missing my point too because I don't care if tones is a racist or not. When you shoot off into a tangent about tones, you also sweep up the rest of us into that same net of "racism". You do realize that people read these threads right? Flippant comments claiming racism for merely asking if Schiff may be a Zionist is damaging to us all and works to label us all the same. Your comments label me, by extension, as racist as well, even though I am only concerned with how Zionist policies affect the US.

 

[Bman]

So it's who uses the word that you take offense to. But then claim there's lots of racists on RPF because they use the word too.

Not who but how and why.

Because the terms are nearly interchangable these days. Neo-cons are only concerned with foreign policy that revolves around protecting Israel, under the guise of protecting the US. Sounds a lot like an American Zionist to me. So your point was that no one should question whether Schiff is a Zionist, just in case you don't like that particular poster. Gotcha. We'll be sure to check with you first before we exercise our freedom of expression.

lol. How and why. It actually means something. Say whatever you want, but just like you are contesting me right now I will contest others also.

Im afraid you're missing my point too because I don't care if tones is a racist or not. When you shoot off into a tangent about tones, you also sweep up the rest of us into that same net of "racism". You do realize that people read these threads right? Flippant comments claiming racism for merely asking if Schiff may be a Zionist is damaging to us all and works to label us all the same. Your comments label me, by extension, as racist as well, even though I am only concerned with how Zionist policies affect the US.

No I'm afraid you are missing the point. Yes, people do read these boards, and they might like to know that some of us aren't simply going to sit around and not defend people against remarks, that I hate to tell you are being used by some to advance their own racially driven agendas. Now Ben Stein obviously used that against Ron, and Tones just used it against Schiff, so who was acting like Ben? Well maybe in the end both of us, but I'd rather be on my side of the argument, and at the end of the day when people do come here to read these threads that they realize I and hopefully other members of this site don't take to kindly to people trying to advance racially motivated attacks on individuals. Again, it's not the word it's the intent. Not once have I come after you for using the term Zionist. It can be used but when you use it in a racially motiated sense it carries some weight, and when you are using the term to reflect negatively upon someone based on race, religion, or other it is racial. Get over it. It's not what you want it to be, it is what it is.