Schiff on Iran

[daSHiZZLE]

Please note...

1. Peter said 'if'.

2. The USA is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the U.S. Constitution mandates the government to honour international treaties and enforce armistice where required. Remember, Part V of the Treaty of Versailles placed restrictions on the German Army, Navy and Air Force. The Allies' failure to enforce these restrictions lead to another World War, one much worse that saw more than one hundred million dead. Treaties are made for good reason and ought to be kept for even better reason.

3. Schiff is running for Senate, not Congress. He will only be able to vote on funding for a war Congress declares. Peter will not be starting any wars.

 

[klamath]

Please note...

1. Peter said 'if'.

2. The USA is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the U.S. Constitution mandates the government to honour international treaties and enforce armistice where required. Remember, Part V of the Treaty of Versailles placed restrictions on the German Army, Navy and Air Force. The Allies' failure to enforce these restrictions lead to another World War, one much worse that saw more than one hundred million dead. Treaties are made for good reason and ought to be kept for even better reason.
3. Schiff is running for Senate, not Congress. He will only be able to vote on funding for a war Congress declares. Peter will not be starting any wars.

This is not a great way to try and justify Schiffs position on these forums. It would sell well on Red state or the Hanity forums but it isn't going to sell well here. This could justify the entire Iraq war if the war was only declared.

 

[daSHiZZLE]

@klamath, are you saying this forum doesn't give a shit about the US Constitution?

 

[klamath]

@klamath, are you saying this forum doesn't give a shit about the US Constitution?

What I am saying is you are going to cause more damage to Schiff than good trying to sell the greatness of the treaty of Versailles. In case you are not a regular on here, US involvement in WWI is NOT popular around here.

 

[G-Wohl]

What I am saying is you are going to cause more damage to Schiff than good trying to sell the greatness of the treaty of Versailles. In case you are not a regular on here, US involvement in WWI is NOT popular around here.

What people around here think shouldn't matter. What matters is what the CT voters think.

Nevertheless, daSHIZZLE, the Treaty of Versailles is a bad example to use. The Germans were forbidden from controlling the basic functions of their own government; the Allied forces should not have been surprised when that started backfiring. Run-down communities and depressed peoples are perfect breeding grounds for radical politics and moral extremism.

I thought Peter's remarks were spot-on, and it makes me even happier to know that they reflect a foreign policy view that is popular amongst Connecticut Republicans. It is unsurprising to me that the only people who care about this are bedroom libertarians who can't even vote in the primaries to begin with.

 

[Thrashertm]

Peter needs to issue an official foreign policy position. I heard his website now has an issues section, but it's down right now.

 

[dr. hfn]

he better preach non-intervention or he is fucked.

 

[Metal Militia]

He better preach what he believes, or he is fucked.

 

[LibertyEagle]

It is my understanding that treaties cannot cede additional powers to the government, beyond those explicitly named in the Constitution.

 

[erowe1]

3. Schiff is running for Senate, not Congress. He will only be able to vote on funding for a war Congress declares. Peter will not be starting any wars.

The Senate is part of Congress. When declarations of war are passed they're passed by both houses of Congress (the Senate and the House of Representatives). Likewise with authorizations to use force in undeclared wars and funding of undeclared military engagements.

 

[MRoCkEd]

Peter replied to someone on youtube/twitter:
My 2002 investment predictions were spot on and I do not want to bomb Iran!

 

[daSHiZZLE]

Nice one MRoCkEd!

 

[G-Wohl]

he better preach non-intervention or he is fucked.

Huh? How do you know? Do you think that's consistent with CT voters? (The more basic question would be to ask why you think Peter isn't preaching non-interventionism to begin with).

 

[Nathan Hale]

Schiff is not in lockstep! Cast him out! Boo! Boo!

 

[Barney]

Schiff is not in lockstep! Cast him out! Boo! Boo!

Invade Iraq, Bomb Iran,... McCain/Cheney 2012. Not exactly in lockstep with the RP movement, but okay by your reasoning.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Invade Iraq, Bomb Iran,... McCain/Cheney 2012. Not exactly in lockstep with the RP movement, but okay by your reasoning.

Please explain how that is okay by my reasoning.

 

[Barney]

Please explain how that is okay by my reasoning.

Schiff's "not in lockstep" because he said he would have invaded Iraq if he knew they had WMD's and he that would bomb Iran if they didn't let our inspectors in. Pretty much every NeoCon is "not in lockstep" with us here.

On economics, every Republican is now a fiscal conservative. Not a single Republican will be voting for the health care bill, despite being the ones who instituted prescription drug benefits. So now they are all "in lockstep" on fiscal issues.

If we shouldn't be all that concerned with foreign policy, what then differentiate Paulites from NeoConservatives? Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Ingram all had good things to say about Ron Paul's fiscal and domestic views. It was his antiwar stance that drew their ire.

 

[G-Wohl]

Schiff's "not in lockstep" because he said he would have invaded Iraq if he knew they had WMD's and he that would bomb Iran if they didn't let our inspectors in. Pretty much every NeoCon is "not in lockstep" with us here.

On economics, every Republican is now a fiscal conservative. Not a single Republican will be voting for the health care bill, despite being the ones who instituted prescription drug benefits. So now they are all "in lockstep" on fiscal issues.

If we shouldn't be all that concerned with foreign policy, what then differentiate Paulites from NeoConservatives? Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Ingram all had good things to say about Ron Paul's fiscal and domestic views. It was his antiwar stance that drew their ire.

A lot of people on this forum have trouble distinguishing between preemptive warfare and non-interventionism. Any non-interventionist can support preemptive tactics without sacrificing their non-interventionist ideals.

I think we can all agree here that non-interventionism is the only sensible foreign policy. Peter fully upholds the values of non-interventionism. He didn't want to invade Iraq for the same reason that Ron Paul didn't want to - there was no evidence to support that Iraq was a threat, and American lives were going to be lost in order to succeed in some sort of altruistic nation-building mission. That's nearly the definition of an interventionist foreign policy. Peter has said time and time again that we are involved in too many domestic affairs and have too many troops around the world. Those are the main talking points of any non-interventionist. At the end of the day, anybody here can be rest assured that Peter is a non-interventionist.

He differs from Ron Paul in that he is a supporter of preemptive war tactics. If a threat was discovered, Peter would support sending troops before we were physically attacked. Hence the remarks on Iran. He obviously supports an America-first foreign policy, where the lives of Americans are considered before the lives of anybody else. He is correct in identifying that a foreign nation's government is responsible for its citizens - not the nation attacking it. Peter also correctly identifies that the US should do all in its power to efficiently and swiftly end any threats to US citizens. This is not at all inconsistent with non-interventionism qua non-interventionism.

 

[winston_blade]

Schiff's "not in lockstep" because he said he would have invaded Iraq if he knew they had WMD's and he that would bomb Iran if they didn't let our inspectors in. Pretty much every NeoCon is "not in lockstep" with us here.

On economics, every Republican is now a fiscal conservative. Not a single Republican will be voting for the health care bill, despite being the ones who instituted prescription drug benefits. So now they are all "in lockstep" on fiscal issues.

If we shouldn't be all that concerned with foreign policy, what then differentiate Paulites from NeoConservatives? Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Ingram all had good things to say about Ron Paul's fiscal and domestic views. It was his antiwar stance that drew their ire.

They all want to end the fed? Count it.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Schiff's "not in lockstep" because he said he would have invaded Iraq if he knew they had WMD's and he that would bomb Iran if they didn't let our inspectors in. Pretty much every NeoCon is "not in lockstep" with us here.

I would disagree, and G-Wohl sums up my position on this nicely.

On economics, every Republican is now a fiscal conservative. Not a single Republican will be voting for the health care bill, despite being the ones who instituted prescription drug benefits. So now they are all "in lockstep" on fiscal issues.

Every Republican always pretends to be a fiscal conservative. Schiff is clearly not just selling fiscal conservatism as a campaign strategy.

If we shouldn't be all that concerned with foreign policy, what then differentiate Paulites from NeoConservatives? Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Ingram all had good things to say about Ron Paul's fiscal and domestic views. It was his antiwar stance that drew their ire.

Foreign policy is the only difference between neo-cons and libertarians? News to me considering many domestic issues supported by Hannity and Co that I find reprehensible.

IMHO there is no watershed issue - look at the Nolan chart - your position on it is derived from a combination of issues. That is the standard we should hold for candidates: with all things considered, where does the candidate fall? Schiff falls firmly in the libertarian quadrant of the chart, so IMHO he's a good candidate.