Daniel Hannan - The Politician Cannot Tell A Lie

[Epic]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100010607/the-politician-who-cannot-tell-a-lie/

 

[Flash]

From the Comments section:

On the GOP, I think McCain is more a traditional Rebublican, in that he is anti-DC, pro-State, anti-Big Govt but pro-America. He knows that America has to defend itself globally, but act locally.

Paul is to the USA what Enoch was to England: smart, right, but disengaged from the “pol” in politics.

Should anyone of us dignify this with a response? John Mccain is one of the most Left-Wing big government Republicans out there in office. John Mccain certainly has never been too big of a fan of states rights, considering he didn't want to leave gay marriage & abortion up to the states. Please help me understand how that is 'anti-big government.' What is Mccain's plan on illegal immigration, the welfare state, unConstitutional wiretapping, Patriot Act, etc..? How can you be Pro-American yet against the document (Constitution) which founded America? Unless the poster meant Pro- north american. Of course I'm being a little too hard on someone that's not actually from America.

 

[Gaius1981]

Now I don’t always agree with the Texas Congressman. Indeed, I don’t agree with his absolutist non-interventionism. Although, like him, I opposed the invasion of Iraq, I’m glad the US intervened militarily against Nazism and Soviet expansionism, and I regard the alliance of free English-speaking nations as one of the happiest geo-political facts of our era.

It appears Daniel Hannan is an evil neocon, eh?

I wish more people in the Ron Paul movement would have a more balanced view on foreign policy, such as Daniel Hannan and, I believe, Peter Schiff and Rand Paul. Be against nation building and spreading democracy through force of arms, but don't be an absolutist non-interventionist. Barry Goldwater was perfect in that regard.

Daniel Hannan is certainly my favourite politician. I'll be studying in the UK for about two years, and hope to be able to meet him while there.

I am in Philadelphia, addressing one of their regional conferences. While there are some odd types among them - including, alas, a couple of 9/11 conspiracy theorists - most of them are, like their hero, extraordinarily high-minded

Did I mention he's my favourite politician?

 

[Flash]

I wish more people in the Ron Paul movement would have a more balanced view on foreign policy, such as Daniel Hannan and, I believe, Peter Schiff and Rand Paul. Be against nation building and spreading democracy through force of arms, but don't be an absolutist non-interventionist. Barry Goldwater was perfect in that regard.

They're welcomed, but I disagree with it. I am more alligned with Pat Buchanan on World War 2. All it really did was hasten Britain's fall and cause Socialism to expand across Europe.

 

[Epic]

I wish more people in the Ron Paul movement would have a more balanced view on foreign policy, such as Daniel Hannan and, I believe, Peter Schiff and Rand Paul. Be against nation building and spreading democracy through force of arms, but don't be an absolutist non-interventionist. Barry Goldwater was perfect in that regard.

How about people who want to go fight abroad can, and people who don't want to can stay here?

The US Government does not need to nationalize the provision of foreign military intervention. Plus, it's funded through theft. And war is the health of the state.

US intervention has a horrible history (and government intervention across time and space has a horrible history), and no World War II was not the "good war".
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance181.html

And it looks like Daniel Hannan even has kind words for intervention against Soviets. Does this mean Vietnam, the epic quagmire?

 

[NYgs23]

I wish more people in the Ron Paul movement would have a more balanced view on foreign policy, such as Daniel Hannan and, I believe, Peter Schiff and Rand Paul. Be against nation building and spreading democracy through force of arms, but don't be an absolutist non-interventionist.

If that's the case, I think that you, Hannan, Schiff, and Rand are wrong about that. War is always catastrophic to all parties involved, including the winners.

If you actually look at the circumstances under which war is justified according to just war theory, they are so narrow that hardly any participant in any war in history has met them. For example, here is the Catholic Catechism's description of the standards of just war:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Link (paragraph no. 2309)

According to these standards I do not think that a single American war, from 1812 onward, can be considered just. What does that tell you?

War is disaster. Strict neutrality and non-interventionism should be the policy of every nation.