Gingrich: four more wars

[TheLibertarian]

The Grinch has lost his mind.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich last week criticized the United States for not engaging more forcefully with other countries besides Iraq that President Georgw W. Bush had identified as the "Axis of Evil."

"I believe he was right but in fact could not operationalize what he said," Gingrich said in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute. "That is, there was an Axis of Evil, Iran, Iraq, North Korea. Well we're one out of three. And people ought to think about that. If Bush was right in January of 2002 -- and by the way virtually the entire Congress gave him a standing ovation when he said it -- then why is it that the other two parts of the Axis of Evil are still visibly, cheerfully making nuclear weapons? And it's because we've stood at brink, looked over and thought, 'too big a problem.'"

Typically I'd be loathe to copy-paste from a leftist website like HuffPo, but it's more than appropriate here. It's time we boot these big-spending chickenhawk neo-cons out of office before they destroy civilization in their hubris. Gingrich, Palin and their Reaganite clones ought to go the way of Obama and the rest of the FDR-lite crowd and gently into that good night.

[ChaosBorders]

The Grinch has lost his mind.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich last week criticized the United States for not engaging more forcefully with other countries besides Iraq that President Georgw W. Bush had identified as the "Axis of Evil."

"I believe he was right but in fact could not operationalize what he said," Gingrich said in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute. "That is, there was an Axis of Evil, Iran, Iraq, North Korea. Well we're one out of three. And people ought to think about that. If Bush was right in January of 2002 -- and by the way virtually the entire Congress gave him a standing ovation when he said it -- then why is it that the other two parts of the Axis of Evil are still visibly, cheerfully making nuclear weapons? And it's because we've stood at brink, looked over and thought, 'too big a problem.'"

Typically I'd be loathe to copy-paste from a leftist website like HuffPo, but it's more than appropriate here. It's time we boot these big-spending chickenhawk neo-cons out of office before they destroy civilization in their hubris. Gingrich, Palin and their Reaganite clones ought to go the way of Obama and the rest of the FDR-lite crowd and gently into that good night.

There a debatable question somewhere there? Or you just blowing off some steam?

[TheLibertarian]

The Grinch has lost his mind.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich last week criticized the United States for not engaging more forcefully with other countries besides Iraq that President Georgw W. Bush had identified as the "Axis of Evil."

"I believe he was right but in fact could not operationalize what he said," Gingrich said in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute. "That is, there was an Axis of Evil, Iran, Iraq, North Korea. Well we're one out of three. And people ought to think about that. If Bush was right in January of 2002 -- and by the way virtually the entire Congress gave him a standing ovation when he said it -- then why is it that the other two parts of the Axis of Evil are still visibly, cheerfully making nuclear weapons? And it's because we've stood at brink, looked over and thought, 'too big a problem.'"

Typically I'd be loathe to copy-paste from a leftist website like HuffPo, but it's more than appropriate here. It's time we boot these big-spending chickenhawk neo-cons out of office before they destroy civilization in their hubris. Gingrich, Palin and their Reaganite clones ought to go the way of Obama and the rest of the FDR-lite crowd and gently into that good night.

There a debatable question somewhere there? Or you just blowing off some steam?

Do you want a question? Fine then:

Should the Republican Party continue to be the heir of liberal militarism, following in the footsteps of Roosevelt, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson? Or ought it return to the principles of Constitutional government and non-interventionism?

[Darias]

You'd think that after invading Iraq, realizing our premise for invading (WMDs and Al-Qaida connections with the Baathists in power) didn't exist, and basically rebuilding the nation from the ground up, and after years of bloodshed and billions spent...

You wouldn't think Americans would say, "Let's do it again! Which evil country shall we invade first? North Korea or Iran?"

I'm not saying we need to all come home and stick our heads in the sand and leave all our bases around the world and just hope the world will love us.

But I am saying - we can't topple every dictatorship and rebuild every nation.

It's one of the major contributors to the U.S. national debt.


Now I understand why we are in Afghanistan. It doesn't have a stable government or much infrastructure. If we leave Afghanistan as it is, it would be very easy for Al-Qaida to move back in. So, I suggest we (U.S. and other nations) train an army and national police force, just as we did in Iraq, so that we can get the --- out of there. Afghanistan's infrastructure and economy could use some help, but I don't know how we could address that.


I want all our troops home as much as anyone else. I'm no neoconservative, but I'm being practical. We've made thousands of promises to Afghanis and we haven't hardly done anything for them in the past 8 years.

I think the quintessential phrase works best here: "You break it, you buy it."


I can't say I'm truly Libertarian because I believe that the party is just as partisan and biased as the other two, but I am an Independent. I borrow most of my political and social views from Democrats - and I think I like the fiscal views of Libertarians and Republicans. I used to be a Republican because Al-Gore and John Kerry were really pathetic. But, the GOP has gone way off the deep end. Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, and Newt Gingrich...

Yeah.

No.

[ChaosBorders]

The Grinch has lost his mind.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich last week criticized the United States for not engaging more forcefully with other countries besides Iraq that President Georgw W. Bush had identified as the "Axis of Evil."

"I believe he was right but in fact could not operationalize what he said," Gingrich said in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute. "That is, there was an Axis of Evil, Iran, Iraq, North Korea. Well we're one out of three. And people ought to think about that. If Bush was right in January of 2002 -- and by the way virtually the entire Congress gave him a standing ovation when he said it -- then why is it that the other two parts of the Axis of Evil are still visibly, cheerfully making nuclear weapons? And it's because we've stood at brink, looked over and thought, 'too big a problem.'"

Typically I'd be loathe to copy-paste from a leftist website like HuffPo, but it's more than appropriate here. It's time we boot these big-spending chickenhawk neo-cons out of office before they destroy civilization in their hubris. Gingrich, Palin and their Reaganite clones ought to go the way of Obama and the rest of the FDR-lite crowd and gently into that good night.

There a debatable question somewhere there? Or you just blowing off some steam?

Do you want a question? Fine then:

Should the Republican Party continue to be the heir of liberal militarism, following in the footsteps of Roosevelt, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson? Or ought it return to the principles of Constitutional government and non-interventionism?

Third option. Stop the militarism, but intervene through charity. Almost all world hunger and thirst could be cured for a fraction of what we spend on the military. Do that and the world will love us and a lot less people will be wanting to kill us.

And personally I think the constitution is somewhat out-dated, so not a huge fan of constitutionalism either.

[TheLibertarian]

The Grinch has lost his mind.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich last week criticized the United States for not engaging more forcefully with other countries besides Iraq that President Georgw W. Bush had identified as the "Axis of Evil."

"I believe he was right but in fact could not operationalize what he said," Gingrich said in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute. "That is, there was an Axis of Evil, Iran, Iraq, North Korea. Well we're one out of three. And people ought to think about that. If Bush was right in January of 2002 -- and by the way virtually the entire Congress gave him a standing ovation when he said it -- then why is it that the other two parts of the Axis of Evil are still visibly, cheerfully making nuclear weapons? And it's because we've stood at brink, looked over and thought, 'too big a problem.'"

Typically I'd be loathe to copy-paste from a leftist website like HuffPo, but it's more than appropriate here. It's time we boot these big-spending chickenhawk neo-cons out of office before they destroy civilization in their hubris. Gingrich, Palin and their Reaganite clones ought to go the way of Obama and the rest of the FDR-lite crowd and gently into that good night.

There a debatable question somewhere there? Or you just blowing off some steam?

Do you want a question? Fine then:

Should the Republican Party continue to be the heir of liberal militarism, following in the footsteps of Roosevelt, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson? Or ought it return to the principles of Constitutional government and non-interventionism?

Third option. Stop the militarism, but intervene through charity. Almost all world hunger and thirst could be cured for a fraction of what we spend on the military. Do that and the world will love us and a lot less people will be wanting to kill us.

That's fine, provided that the aid isn't paid for through public funding, i.e. coercive taxation. We are neither the world's policeman nor its priest; let other nations be the former and private individuals be the latter.

And personally I think the constitution is somewhat out-dated, so not a huge fan of constitutionalism either.

I don't disagree with you. I much prefer the Articles of Confederation to the hellish document foisted upon the nation by Alexander Hamilton and his brood. I would have been an Anti-Federalist through and through.

[ChaosBorders]

That's fine, provided that the aid isn't paid for through public funding, i.e. coercive taxation. We are neither the world's policeman nor its priest; let other nations be the former and private individuals be the latter.

Which means it wouldn't happen.

I don't disagree with you. I much prefer the Articles of Confederation to the hellish document foisted upon the nation by Alexander Hamilton and his brood. I would have been an Anti-Federalist through and through.

Articles of Confederation were even worse. Its inadequacy is precisely why we ended up with the constitution, which itself is now inadequate.

[TheLibertarian]

Which means it wouldn't happen.

It already is.

More than three dozen of America's wealthiest individuals and families have joined Bill Gates and Warren Buffett in agreeing to give away at least half their fortunes to charity.

The announcement was made Wednesday by The Giving Pledge, an effort officially launched by Gates and Buffett earlier this year to persuade the richest people in America to commit to giving the majority of their wealth to the philanthropic causes and charitable organizations of their choice, either during their lifetime or after their death.

In addition to Buffett and Gates — America's two wealthiest individuals, with a combined net worth of $90 billion, according to Forbes — 38 other billionaires are taking the give-it-away pledge. They include New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, entertainment executive Barry Diller, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, energy tycoon T. Boone Pickens, media mogul Ted Turner, David Rockefeller, film director George Lucas and investor Ronald Perelman.

"We’ve really just started, but already we’ve had a terrific response,� Buffett, co-founder and chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, said in a statement. “At its core, the Giving Pledge is about asking wealthy families to have important conversations about their wealth and how it will be used.

"We’re delighted that so many people are doing just that – and that so many have decided to not only take this pledge but also to commit to sums far greater than the 50 percent minimum level.�

Bloomberg added: "If you want to do something for your children and show how much you love them, the single best thing — by far — is to support organizations that will create a better world for them and their children. And by giving, we inspire others to give of themselves, whether their money or their time.�

Gates and Buffett launched "The Giving Pledge" in June. The effort could funnel a colossal amount of money into nonprofit groups. If the individuals on the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans pledged half their net worth to charity, that would amount to $600 billion, according to Fortune magazine.

Articles of Confederation were even worse. Its inadequacy is precisely why we ended up with the constitution, which itself is now inadequate.

Which is why the Constitution failed to prevent a full-blown Civil War from erupting within seventy years of its being adopted.

[ChaosBorders]

Which means it wouldn't happen.

It already is.

That is awesome to hear, but I'm remaining skeptical until the money's actually in charity. Signing a pledge is very different than actually handing over billions of dollars. It's very rarely happened before, and I'll be pleasantly amazed if it happens now. It will also be interesting to see what 'charitable' causes those who do part with their money actually give to.

[Goat]

Which means it wouldn't happen.

It already is.

That is awesome to hear, but I'm remaining skeptical until the money's actually in charity. Signing a pledge is very different than actually handing over billions of dollars. It's very rarely happened before, and I'll be pleasantly amazed if it happens now. It will also be interesting to see what 'charitable' causes those who do part with their money actually give to.

Actually, it is being given away as a specific pace (not in one lump sum), and it is going to the Bill Gates foundation. Part of that money is developing wells in Africa so that there is access to clean water.