Actually, you must remember that before the last election, the two candidates that received the most money from the military were:

1) Ron Paul
2) Barack Obama

Both were running on an anti-war platform – Obama of course was lying/co-opted.

This year, out of all the GOP candiates, he has the most:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9044-ron-paul-campaign-receive-most-military-donations

Ron Paul runs on a platform of wars of self defence (i.e. if America is attacked) and wants to bring troops home as soon as possible. The fact he gets the most money from the military, just shows what they think of the wars they are forced to engage in. The fact he gets attacked in some quarters for being ‘anti-American’ is a testament to the stupidity of those that do so.

Actually, you must remember that before the last election, the two candidates that received the most money from the military were:

1) Ron Paul
2) Barack Obama

Both were running on an anti-war platform – Obama of course was lying/co-opted.

This year, out of all the candiates, he has the most:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9044-ron-paul-campaign-receive-most-military-donations

Ron Paul runs on a platform of wars of self defence (i.e. if America is attacked) and wants to bring troops home as soon as possible. The fact he gets the most money from the military, just shows what they think of the wars they are forced to engage in. The fact he gets attacked in some quarters for being ‘anti-American’ is a testament to the stupidity of those that do so.

Well, there you go. Now, as in the sixties, the Democrats are once again the party of charging around the planet bombing hell out of whoever they like for no sane reason. Call me mental if you will, but this doesn’t strike me as a particularly joyful development.

Obama of course was lying

Not sure what he was lying about – he said he would do his best to close Gitmo and to pull troops out of Iraq. Troops out of Iraq this year end, and he HAS done his utmost to close Gitmo
http://www.propublica.org/article/obama-counterterrorism-adviser-slams-efforts-to-block-guantanamos-closure

“the first time since 1948 that the Republicans select a candidate who has not served in uniform.”

What did George W Bush do?

It seems to me that charging around and bombing the hell out of the planet to secure democracy, bubble gum and unicorns for all peoples in all places is the natural repose of the liberal internationalist.

If the GOP has been doing a lot of running with this particular stick recently it’s probably because they’ve taken over by liberal internationalists (e.g., your friends and mine, Team Vulcan).

@Sunny Hundal comment 4

My previous reply was deleted, but here is the gist of it:

1)Obama, rather than getting out of Iraq has expanded the number of mercenaries who are above the law:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/37877/iraq-withdrawal-obama-and-clinton-expanding-us-paramilitary-force-iraq

2) Rather than focusing on the fake blame game Obama played on GITMO, he has actually signed an executive order allowing GITMO to detain prisoners indefinately (and thereby keeping the need for GITMO):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/07/AR2011030704871.html

3) Obama has increased the drone attacks in Pakistan

4) Obama has increased the drone attacks in Yemen:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-increases-yemen-drone-strikes/2011/09/16/gIQAB2SXYK_story.html

5) Furthermore, Obama was the key player in the stupid folly in Libya

“Of greater significance is the fact that, should they choose anyone but Rick Perry, it will be the first time since 1948 that the Republicans select a candidate who has not served in uniform.”

Ron Paul served in the military as a flight surgeon.

5 – didn’t he get some cushy number in the Texan airforce or something along those lines?

4. Sunny Hundal

Not sure what he was lying about – he said he would do his best to close Gitmo and to pull troops out of Iraq. Troops out of Iraq this year end, and he HAS done his utmost to close Gitmo

I don’t recall him saying he would try to close Guantanamo. I seem to remember he said he would close it. He has not. Nor will all soldiers leave Iraq when Obama follows George W. Bush’s plan to draw down soldiers in Iraq. Most of them will but not all.

However I don’t think this means Obama lied. He was just woefully poorly prepared and had no idea of the complexities of the real world. So he got schooled, in a hurry, by the grown ups. Which means he has been George W. Bush-lite on foreign policy. Not that lite either.

That is what you get when you elect someone with no real credentials, or experience or qualifications to the most important job in the world.

10. So Much For Subtlety

” That is what you get when you elect someone with no real credentials, or experience or qualifications to the most important job in the world. ”

The problem of course SMFS, is what job does equip a candidate to do the most important job in the world? The only way you find out whether they are any good is to elect them and see. Apart from Huntsman and possibly Romney, none of the Republican candidates has the credentials to do the job.

There is a split on the U.S. Right between the aggressive neo-cons who want to project U.S. power throughout the world. The other side of the split is the insular isolationist Right who want to pretend that it is still the 19th century and everything will be fine if we just mind our own business. Of course, they still want the prosperity that comes from being the most powerful nation on earth. Just not the foreign policy obligations. It has been noticeable that in the Republican debates that foreign policy has hardly featured. Yet, for the rest of the world the foreign policy of the most powerful nation is the most important issue.

In some respects, I think the U.S. has got tired with being in the most powerful nation role since WW11. Culturally, they are not cut out for such a role. No one else can fulfill that role and I think the world will be a more dangerous place as a consequence. Others of course will see it different and claim the world does not need powerful nations. Time will tell who was right.

11. Richard W

The problem of course SMFS, is what job does equip a candidate to do the most important job in the world? The only way you find out whether they are any good is to elect them and see. Apart from Huntsman and possibly Romney, none of the Republican candidates has the credentials to do the job.

Well that is hardly true of Perry who is the longest serving governor in Texas history. He definitely has experience. Vastly more so than Obama who seems to have simply coasted on Affirmative Action all his life. I am not sure what job equips someone to be President. But a lot of jobs show his character before he gets to the White House. You don’t need to elect them and see. You can tell beforehand. As we would both agree about most of the candidates who don’t get even this far.

There is a split on the U.S. Right between the aggressive neo-cons who want to project U.S. power throughout the world. The other side of the split is the insular isolationist Right who want to pretend that it is still the 19th century and everything will be fine if we just mind our own business.

Well no there isn’t. The neo-cons are mainly a busted flush. They are gone. As are the Isolationists. That was a platform George W. Bush was elected on and it did not work out for him. Everyone left in the Republian Party (and obviously the main supporter of isolationism, Pat Buchanan, is no longer in the party) is not one or the other. They are more realistic about the perils of both. Not a single candidate can be put in either of these camps except the village idiot Ron Paul.

Of course, they still want the prosperity that comes from being the most powerful nation on earth.

No. They are the most powerful nation on earth because they are prosperous. Not the other way around.

Just not the foreign policy obligations. It has been noticeable that in the Republican debates that foreign policy has hardly featured. Yet, for the rest of the world the foreign policy of the most powerful nation is the most important issue.

Yes. The American public is oddly irresponsible that way. But it always has been.

In some respects, I think the U.S. has got tired with being in the most powerful nation role since WW11. Culturally, they are not cut out for such a role. No one else can fulfill that role and I think the world will be a more dangerous place as a consequence. Others of course will see it different and claim the world does not need powerful nations. Time will tell who was right.

I would agree. The problem is America’s ruling class has not given up on its responsibilities. So Britain chose irrelevance from the top down, but the American leadership has not so far. We will see.

He was just woefully poorly prepared and had no idea of the complexities of the real world.

Or, it means that what politicians say isn’t strongly connected to what politicians actually do.

This isn’t hard – the Democrats were every bit as gung-ho for wars and massive violence as the Republicans back in the early part of the decade. They always have been – their sole selling point is that they’d bomb the planet in a more judicious fashion, with a bit less of the crass yee-haw stuff. Insofar as the Dems were willing to adopt an anti-war stance, it was based on fighting better wars and only disappearing them what deserve it into their black prison network.

The Dems’ entire schtick this decade has been to co-opt anti-war sentiment, strip it entirely of any threat to the existing Bombing-Shit-Out-Of-Everything policy, and then channel the resultant power boost back into fighting more wars.

There is no major anti-war party in America, just as there is no major anti-war party in the UK. It just looks like there is to warmongers and gullible anti-war types, because of their mental blind spots. All major US & UK parties support war as a standard tool of foreign policy and differ only in its applications; On destroying Evil wherever it exists, Bush, Obama, Blair and Cameron differ only on the voltage with which it should be zapped.

So when Barack Obama runs a pro-escalation in Afghanistan campaign and makes noises about calming that flagrant excess or this outrageous enormity, and then proceeds to ramp up war, torture and general mayhem worldwide, I don’t assume that he’s been schooled by the OMG Massive, Desperately Essential Imperative To Bomb Fuck Out Of Everything.

It seems much, much more likely to me that this was what he always intended to do. It is, after all, what previous Democratic presidents have done.

Vastly more so than Obama who seems to have simply coasted on Affirmative Action all his life.

Oh God, yes. This isn’t a whiffy comment to make at all, particularly when Barack Obama insists on being so very black about everything.

I agree with the broad thrust of FR’s comment, i.e. that there isn’t much distance between the Dems and the Reps when it comes to bouncing around the planet having adventures. (Next showing: US SOF vs. the Lord’s Resistance Army! Early bird tickets on sale now). Perhaps you could slide a rizla up in there, but little else.

It isn’t just the two main parties, either. It’s basically everyone who is serious about anything. If you check in with, say, the CFR, they will give you much the same answer. The whole of the Washington complex, in fact, is of the same mind: liberal internationalism. It’s the spirit of the age.

13. flyingrodent

Or, it means that what politicians say isn’t strongly connected to what politicians actually do.

It could mean that. But as it has involved repeated humiliating back downs and alienating Obama’s base (and I assume we agree politicians want to get re-elected as well as elected), I am not convinced in this specific case.

This isn’t hard – the Democrats were every bit as gung-ho for wars and massive violence as the Republicans back in the early part of the decade. They always have been – their sole selling point is that they’d bomb the planet in a more judicious fashion, with a bit less of the crass yee-haw stuff. Insofar as the Dems were willing to adopt an anti-war stance, it was based on fighting better wars and only disappearing them what deserve it into their black prison network.

This is, of course, nonsense. Few countries in the history of the human race have been less willing to use force than America. They are simply not gung ho on either side of politics. Which is why the world is such a peaceful place – not only do they mostly reject violence, they have persuaded most other people to do so as well. Of course I know this is not going to make a dent in some deeply held prejudices, but it is still true.

As for the Democrat’s platform, I am not sure you have moved beyond a few trite cliches there. The Republicans and the Democrats have had their isolationist wings – mostly geographically based in places like Minnesota. But in so far as it is possible to tell, it looks to me like the Democrats are more likely to follow some version of liberal interventionism and get America involved in wars. After all Woodrow Wilson was not, as far as I can remember, a Republican. Which may explain why Truman took America into the Korean War. Why JFK and LBJ took America into Vietnam and so on. But hey, why bother with facts?

The Dems’ entire schtick this decade has been to co-opt anti-war sentiment, strip it entirely of any threat to the existing Bombing-Shit-Out-Of-Everything policy, and then channel the resultant power boost back into fighting more wars.

Or to put it in a way that is slightly closer to reality, a large part of the Dem’s base is violently opposed to all things military, but most voters are not. So they are stuck walking a tight rope between what their most devoted followers want and what the voters expect.

There is no major anti-war party in America, just as there is no major anti-war party in the UK. It just looks like there is to warmongers and gullible anti-war types, because of their mental blind spots.

Well that is not true. The Stop the War Coalition was major. It probably reflected the anti-War sentiments of most people. But it was not in power and so it was not responsible. Parties that get elected have obligation fruit loops on the street do not.

All major US & UK parties support war as a standard tool of foreign policy and differ only in its applications; On destroying Evil wherever it exists, Bush, Obama, Blair and Cameron differ only on the voltage with which it should be zapped.

Yes and no. All of them support the idea of using force if need be. Virtually all of them agree that we almost never need to.

14. flyingrodent

Oh God, yes. This isn’t a whiffy comment to make at all, particularly when Barack Obama insists on being so very black about everything.

Up to the point he needed to be elected, Obama went out of his way to stress his ties to the African-American community even though he did not really have any. So until recently he did. What is whiffy about it? Can you explain his career otherwise?

Since the end of 2008 election……….Mitch McConnell (R) stated:
Our most important goal we want to achieve is to make Obama a one term president
Not, Jobs, Economy, the Wars,………and today………Libyan Leader is dead………and all their bashing of this president’s decision “No Troops on the Ground” with only Air strikes………..Makes one more mistake the republicans have done…….

@ 12. So Much For Subtlety

Perry has been utterly unconvincing in the Republican debates. Hence, a collapse in his numbers.

I was thinking more in terms of the conservative base of the split between isolationists and a neo-con outlook.

I think the relationship between prosperity and most powerful nation on earth is more symbiotic than you believe, SMFS. After WW2, the U.S. was in a position to design the international framework to build in advantages for themselves. Some of those advantages have been eroded in recent years and as a consequence the widespread post-WW2 prosperity has also declined. The U.S. is in relative decline, however, I would be reluctant to be too deterministic to say that they are in absolute decline. They are still a very rich and dynamic society who are perfectly capable of reinventing themselves with better policies.

18. Richard W

Perry has been utterly unconvincing in the Republican debates. Hence, a collapse in his numbers.

I noticed. and yet it is an odd way to judge a candidate. Obama was moderately good in debate but useless as President. I am not sure that debating skills are a sensible means of judging candidates. His track record is much better. But still, we tend to vote for people we like, and debates show us if we like that person or not.

I was thinking more in terms of the conservative base of the split between isolationists and a neo-con outlook.

Is there one? The neo-cons have no presence among the grassroots. There is a strong isolationist streak in both parties but especially the Democrats.

I think the relationship between prosperity and most powerful nation on earth is more symbiotic than you believe, SMFS. After WW2, the U.S. was in a position to design the international framework to build in advantages for themselves.

And they didn’t. Which is what is so unusual. The biggest beneficiaries of that post-War order have been America’s allies. Japan obviously, but even countries like France and Germany have done very well. Just as China is doing so well now. They created a genuinely open, fair, system that is not biased in America’s favour. Which is why it is so successful and so many countries are happy to take part in it right down to allowing US soldiers on their soil.

Some of those advantages have been eroded in recent years and as a consequence the widespread post-WW2 prosperity has also declined. The U.S. is in relative decline, however, I would be reluctant to be too deterministic to say that they are in absolute decline. They are still a very rich and dynamic society who are perfectly capable of reinventing themselves with better policies.

Sure – they are in relative decline. The system they have created has made everyone else who wants to take part grow faster than America. What I said. America has been in relative decline since 1945. But America is still rich. Its position is being held up by the spinelessness of the Europeans and Japanese who do not want to pay to defend themselves and so make America look more powerful than it really is. But the fact remains – it is the wealth that makes the US powerful, not the other way around.

it has involved repeated humiliating back downs and alienating Obama’s base

I suggest that neither party gives a damn about alienating its base, if they perceive that it’s in their interests to do so. What are their supporters going to do, vote for Ross Perot?

Few countries in the history of the human race have been less willing to use force than America.

In what universe? Only the UK can rival the Americans for aggressive military action in the last five decades! The US has attacked and/or occupied Afghanistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria and Serbia just in the last twenty years and has threatened God knows how many others; it has bases and/or troops in more than half the countries on the planet and a military budget equivalent to the rest of the planet put together.

I mean, look at the invasion of Iraq on its own – that was one of the most popular wars in history, undertaken with absolute bipartisan support in an atmosphere of near-unanimous national celebration. It’d give the outbreak of World War I a run for its money, for God’s sake.

Few countries less willing to use force? Aside from everybody else in the UN bar maybe Britain, you mean? No country in the history of the world has every been more willing to use force, on flimsier pretexts, across the entire globe and on almost every continent.

Whether you think that’s good or bad, it’s such an obvious fact that I’m absolutely incredulous that it’s necessary to point this out to any sane human being.

it looks to me like the Democrats are more likely to follow some version of liberal interventionism and get America involved in wars.

Yes, this is my point. The Democrats are not anti-war. There is no major anti-war party, either in the US or the UK. There are just some people who think many of our wars are idiotic and needless, and even they can’t be relied upon to oppose all wars – loads of them fell over themselves to back Nato’s Libya escapade. The Democratic Party itself is very much in favour of war, in the abstract and concrete, to the point of near-total consensus; it has been for decades and it will continue to be, regardless of the expectations of its supporters. It quibbles over some wars. That’s the extent of its resistence.

The Stop the War Coalition was major.

That’s how you refute the idea that there is no major anti-war party, is it? How many divisions has the STWC? Can it filibuster? Can it petition the UN?

Or to put it in a way that is slightly closer to reality, a large part of the Dem’s base is violently opposed to all things military, but most voters are not. So they are stuck walking a tight rope between what their most devoted followers want and what the voters expect.

The Dems’ base can oppose this or that, but their representatives have continued to fund and expand war regardless of voters’ opinions. Plus, what the hell? When was the last time a clear majority of American voters were polled in favour of Iraq or Afghanistan, 2005? 2004?

All of them support the idea of using force if need be. Virtually all of them agree that we almost never need to.

This, after a decade of constant war in which opposition parties have a) only made procedural complaints, not substantive ones about the necessity of war itself and b) Immediately ramped up wars of their own when given the slightest opportunity to do so.

I repeat – there is no major force in American or British politics that is anti-war in anything but the most peripheral sense of the term. The contention that there is is insane and based upon a ludicrous misinterpretation of reality.

Wait – is this a species of the old wingnut argument that goes, Because America has the capability to blow everything and anything that annoys them the fuck up with total impunity, the fact that it doesn’t blow everything and anything that annoys them the fuck up shows admirable restraint, isn’t it?

That’s one of my favourites!