Rick Perry showcases his interventionist credentials

Source

While he does not outright say his endorsement of any war directly, the language used enough to show his mentality. One passed down from Wilson to Roosevelt to Truman to Eisenhower to Kennedy to Johnson to Reagan to Clinton to Bush and to Obama, the belief that we must be the great liberators of the world, fighting a never ending battle for the spread of democracy and ‘human rights’. The old line of liberal interventionism, sprouting up from the Liberal Protestant reforms during the early 20th century and the millennialism of many Protestants also during this time, it is the belief in the US being a crusader for a cause of which the government must indoctrinate the people to support.

“I do not believe that America should fall subject to a foreign policy of military adventurism. We should only risk shedding American blood and spending American treasure when our vital interests are threatened and we should always look to build coalitions among the nations to protect the mutual interests of freedom loving people,” Perry told thousands of veterans today.

Vital interests you say? I had always thought the goal of the United States military was to protect and defend the liberty of the American people and the independent sovereignty of this Republic? Since when did it become the responsibility of soldiers to fight on behalf of whatever corporation or ideological/religious interest you feel compelled to use their lives to defend? They should defend America, not US government interests.

”It’s a dangerous world that we live in today. Our enemies often don’t wear uniforms or swear allegiance to a particular flag but instead to an ideology of hatred. As the 10th anniversary of the attacks of 911 approach, we must renew our commitment to taking the fight to the enemy wherever they are before they strike at home.”

May I just quote a famous Republican President for you:

“A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war.
I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing
... It seems to me that when, by definition, a term is just ridiculous in itself, there is no use in going any further.” - Dwight D. Eisenhower

“He helped liberate millions from tyranny. When he came home he didn’t seek acclaim or credit, he just wanted to live in peace and freedom,”

Liberate? But I had always thought the war was to protect the United States of America? When did World War II become a war in which America’s soldiers greatest role is remembered that of a liberator and not of a defender of this republic? Oh right, it has always been that way. It is the same line used by every liberal internationalist since the time of Wilson when we first heard the use of the idea, war to make the world “safe for democracy”.

Do not forget Rick Perry met with Donald Rumsfeld to create his positions on foreign policy

Please be sure and read my other threads on Rick Perry:

Enemy of America: Rick Perry
The biggest religious movement you never heard of

Talking out both ends is just part of the game... I'm pretty sure most people are used to it by now.

Explains the latest gallup poll results.

The banking cartel / globalists point Perry and fire away.

He has never failed to amaze me with his two-faced abilities and boldness.

Yes a preventitive war in the 30's would have been a very bad idea. Better to let the Nazi's kill 6 million jews and occupy most of Europe before we act.

reply to post by Misoir


I may remember wrong, but, didn't we get attacked before we got mixed up in WW2? Anyway, Rick Perry is a pud, I can't stand him. I hope that one day my state will produce a president or candidate that isnt a moron. I would be proud.

reply to post by kro32


And the responsibility of protecting lives of any non-American is our responsibility since when? Until the point at which Hitler could threaten us we should have stayed out of it entirely. We provoked the war by raiding German ships at sea and placing harsh embargoes against the Japanese knowing they would want to win the war effort in the Pacific which would result in an attack upon us so that Roosevelt could justify his itchy trigger finger. He wanted us in the war so as to recreate the War Socialism of Woodrow Wilson during his involvement in World War I, which was the direct cause of World War II.

The “War to end all Wars” only resulted like that because the US injected itself into the war so as to define it as one of ideology, i.e. war to make the world “safe for democracy”. Rather than having a conventional war where two sides fight until an agreement can be made an ideological war is one where there cannot be an end until the other side is destroyed, which was the result. We divided up the lands previously held together by the Habsburg dynasty in Austria-Hungary, overthrew the military nobility and aristocracy of Kaiser’s Germany so as to further eradicate the Monarchial and Aristocratic “old world”.

By doing this we allowed for a power vacuum to result in Central Europe leading to the rise of Fascists to reintroduce the post French Revolutionary ideals of Authoritarian centralized government combined with a nationalist socialism which advocated nihilistic cultural values, anti-communist rhetoric, and espoused the ideas of absolute statism. It was the resurfacing, alongside communism, of Gnostic ideals from ancient times of earthly utopians except in a violent form where Fascists desired racial purity. Communism espoused the same utopianism except their views were for a “classless, stateless society”.

This does not even bring into issue the disgusting division of lands belonging to the losers whereby the victors stole land from the losers and distributed however they saw fit. Many ethnic groups became displaced leading further to the war efforts by Hitler to retake lands previously stolen by the Allies and given to other regimes whereby they subjected these ethnic minorities to foul and disturbing treatment.

So do not come here with your sob story about the Jews and saving Europe, the only reason WWII even happened was because we stuck our nose where it did not belong.

reply to post by billy197300


Yes we did, I do not dispute that, if you read what I had wrote carefully then you will see my problem with his statement was the fact that he celebrated that his father was a liberator of Europe rather than a defender of the republic.

reply to post by Misoir

OK, I misunderstood. Maybe it was to try and look good to Europe, thats the only thing I can think of.

reply to post by Misoir


Germany would have came for us eventually but by that time with your philosophy we would have had no allies left to help us and Germany would have had the bomb also.

Your logic is so flawed with your anti-war rhetoric it's scary. If I might make a suggestion for a new avatar for you I believe it fits you more than the one you currently have.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cefd4f953f7c.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by kro32


I find it quite telling that the only response you provide is one of emotional rhetoric, how about deconstructing my post to show exactly how and why each point I brought up is false? That would be quite enjoyable a lively and intellectual debate. But until the time when you have matured past the point of emotional rhetoric and personal attacks then any time spent reading your posts is just time wasted.

reply to post by Misoir


I just mentioned what was wrong with your post but I notice you avoid the example I brought up and try to change the subject.

You have to admit that sometimes waiting till we are attacked is wrong, once again according to your logic, America never would have grown past 13 colonies if even that since you would consider it wrong to encroach upon the Native Americans.

The world is playing a dangerous game and you either play it to win it or you get swallowed up by it. Had we not expanded and engaged in conflict somebody else would have. Your belief is what destroy's country's. Does that mean you must agree with every war or conflict? Of course not and i'm not arguing that with you.

I am debating the fact that your belief that we wait till we are attacked is very flawed.

reply to post by kro32


How does the saying go again? Oh yeah...

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by kro32


I ignored the example you brought up because you did so with blind ignorance as to the historical context and the reason as to why it even occurred. Without analyzing and accepting the timeline and buildup to the war, which was overwhelmingly the fault of our previous intervention for ideological supremacy during the First World War, we are merely arguing over history in the context of “to the victor go the spoils”, this time a spoils of controlling historical context.

How about addressing why we instigated the Germans into being our enemy by raiding their ships, imprisoning their seamen, and harassing them illegally in international waters? Why not talk about our involvement with the Soviet Union in regards to the creation of a United Nations once we overthrew Hitler in Germany? Let us discuss the issue of Roosevelt selling arms to the United Kingdom rather than building up our defenses here at home in the event of a possible attack by the Japanese or Germans? How about you explain why the Western powers (UK, US, France) were actually the ones pushing for confrontation?

How about the hypocrisy of the British by sanctioning Mussolini’s Italy for the Italo-Ethiopian war while they had their own imperialist adventures, this drove the Italians into bed with Hitler, which almost resulted in war in 1936 that caused the remilitarization of the Rhineland? What about the Franco-Soviet pact which also resulted in Germany’s remilitarization by trying to create a containment which angered nationalistic Germans who were being surrounded on all sides because it in itself was an act of aggression against Germany and a violation of the Locarno Treaties. How about the fact that Hitler wanted to reclaim the Polish Danzig so as to allow for a common defense against Soviet Russia? Why then did Britain in 1939 guarantee independence to Poland other than to guarantee a war between the two nations which would otherwise have formed an alliance against their common enemy?\

Why does the Western history forget to mention how Hitler wanted an alliance with Britain rather than war because his biggest perceived threat was Stalin? Why was it that Chamberlain was the first to declare war and Churchill rejected Hitler’s peace agreement in 1940? Would you mind explaining this excerpt from Winston Churchill’s memoirs for me?

"One day President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once, "The Unnecessary War." There never was a war more easy to stop than that which has just wrecked what was left of the world from the previous struggle."

When Joachim von Ribbentrop made a final offer to the British Foreign Minister Sir Nevile Henderson on August 30, 1939 it was a genuine agreement to avert war which the British refused. How about explaining Churchill’s acceptance of the Morgenthau Plan which was a genocidal plan by Henry Morgenthau and his deputy the Soviet agent Harry Dexter White to give the power of Europe to the Soviet Union? And what about Churchill’s support for the British forced sterilization and segregation of the mentally unfit in 1914, also espoused by Theodore Roosevelt years before, which was used as a model for the Nazi Action T4 program?

Hitler was no threat to Western Europe, he only wanted to move into Eastern Europe an ally with those states to create a bloc against the Soviets, he even wanted an alliance with Britain because he had assumed that they too were against the Soviets. The entirety of World War II was caused by either completely incompetent leaders or Germanophobic and hypocritical Western politicians who believed the Germans were out to conquer the world. Operation Barbarossa is often cited as some sinister master plan but was actually an attempt by Hitler to force Britain into peace before bringing the Soviets in on the Allies side. And the entire Holocaust would not have to been to such a degree had Britain accepted Hitler’s 1939 and 1940 attempts at peace which through their rejections allowed him to militarily expand into Eastern Europe where most of Europe’s Jews lived.

The entire idea proposed by Gerhard Weinberg that Hitler wanted to conquer the world was a lie. The citing by FDR that Hitler’s “master plan to conquer Central and South America” was actually produced by British intelligence and not able to be found in any historical records in Germany. Never did Hitler have any idea of global conquest; he was too paranoid about Jews and Soviet, which he assumed to be the result of Jews.

Do we even discuss the fact that Roosevelt and Churchill gave the Soviet Union Eastern Europe at the Yalta and Tehran conferences? What about the expulsion of ethnic and national Germans from Eastern Europe from 1944-50 which resulted in 2,000,000+ German deaths which was approved by Churchill and British leaders while they were using victor’s punishment against Nazi’s during the Nuremburg trials, charging them with crimes against humanity while they themselves at the very same time were approving the expulsions.

Everything, everything during World War II and the consequences as a result thereof would never have happened. Not only for the fact that had the UK not promised Poland Independence in 1939 or it’s twice rejection of a peace agreement with Germany but also for the fact that the US intervened in World War I to turn it into an ideological battle for control of the Western world and its ideals.

There, is that answer good enough for you?

reply to post by Misoir


Your knowledge of history is flawed at best and no disrespect intended. If you've read Hitlers writings or listened to his speeches you will know that he wanted complete domination of Europe and the only reason he wanted an alliance with Briton was to keep them out of the war as long as possible.

In fact, operation Sea Lion, was being planned long before his war machine ever started rolling. That was the invasion of Briton in case you didn't know. Your belief that we would have been left alone if we didn't get involved is laughable. Even Napolean was forming battle plans to conquer America after he was victorious in Europe which luckily didn't happen.

Believe what you wish I suppose.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Misoir

 

Your knowledge of history is flawed at best and no disrespect intended. If you've read Hitlers writings or listened to his speeches you will know that he wanted complete domination of Europe and the only reason he wanted an alliance with Briton was to keep them out of the war as long as possible.

I have listened to his speeches and he was not a very intelligent or moral person but he was not an idiot.

In fact, operation Sea Lion, was being planned long before his war machine ever started rolling. That was the invasion of Briton in case you didn't know.

Actually Operation Sea Lion was being planned no earlier than November 1939 when Hitler had decided on forcing the West into a decision by invading the Benelux and France. Knowing the obvious consequences and planning for the worst he had his men creates drafts of how to respond to an English threat. Their result was Operation Sea Lion which was a plan to attack and invade England only if the requirement arised.

Your belief that we would have been left alone if we didn't get involved is laughable.

Your inability to question historical accuracy and do research outside of the classroom is what truly humors me.

Even Napolean was forming battle plans to conquer America after he was victorious in Europe which luckily didn't happen.

His plans for North America were to retake the Louisiana territory, strangle American trade to the West, and force us to negotiate an agreement on his terms. It was not to take over the entirety of the United States, even though a reclaiming of the Louisiana territory would have been an all-out war, but it would have been a conflict that inevitably would have resulted in us fighting the French here. But you are trying to take one historical event and draw the same conclusions with another, completely separate event, just because you are grasping at straws.

Believe what you wish I suppose.

Same to you.

Originally posted by kro32
Yes a preventitive war in the 30's would have been a very bad idea. Better to let the Nazi's kill 6 million jews and occupy most of Europe before we act.

wow, interestingly, that's almost exactly what ex KGB Yuri Besmenov says. This is the tactic, let the buildup happen then go in. Why did FDR let the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor? Americans typically do not like pre-emptive war however. The real key is who is financing the buildup....

reply to post by kro32


hahaha Hanoi Jane. Was married to Ted Turner one of the most liberal of liberals. How did she go from blonde bombshell Barefoot in the Park fried eel eating actress to protesting Viet Nam?

Originally posted by kro32
Yes a preventitive war in the 30's would have been a very bad idea. Better to let the Nazi's kill 6 million jews and occupy most of Europe before we act.

and that's exactly what we did. The US didn't enter WWII until Pearl harbor.

Source

Now not only are Rick Perry's foreign policy advisors thus far more hawkish than those of George W. Bush but the Perry plan is to speak of a 'humble foreign policy' (remember Bush 2000) and try to run on the US needing to go it alone on these adventures overseas. The reason is clear: steal voters from Ron Paul. By pretending to neither be a 'dove' or a 'hawk' he will attempt to unite a party now divided on the issue of foreign policy. Just like Bush did to steal away non-interventionist Pat Buchanan supporters in 2000 Rick Perry will do to the non-interventionist Ron Paul supporters in 2012.

He is such a snake in the grass. The same man who wants an open border with Mexico, forced vaccination of young girls, and had no problem in continuously enlarging the Texas state government has no taken on the identity of some cowboy Ron Paul. Fact is Rick Perry is nothing like Ron Paul, he is a liar, cheater, and Neocon who will change not one damn thing.

Americans who flock to him as if he will change anything will deserve what they get in 2013 when either Obama or Perry is sitting in the White House and everyone is crying "nothing changed"! Of course nothing changed! Idiots thought Obama was going to change what Bush had done, no idiots think Perry will change what Obama had done/is doing.