[lbo-talk] Ron Paul and the Civil War

[Wojtek S]

[WS:]  Nice rhetoric, but then so what?  Bush jr. promised the same,
and then invaded Iraq. Obama at least was honest about his plans to
escalate war in Afghanistan.  So why should Paul be any different?
Because he says so?

The reason behind US militarism is not because leaders are bad or
dishonest, but because there is very little political cost for sending
in the troops, but a very high potential cost for failing to do so.

Wojtek

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Carl G. Estabrook
<galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:
> Except for the seriously misleading big-government/small-government meme (it
> makes a big difference whether the big government is the WPA or the CIA),
> this video is a far better account of the function of elections than we hear
> within the usual limits of allowable debate...  (And this seems even better:
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf-DKyAmNy0>.)  --CGE
>
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2012, at 6:16 PM, James Heartfield wrote:
>
>> Mind you, the anti-establishment arguments that these Paul-supporters are
>> coming out with are pretty spirited.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzG9y_K3_Sw
>>
>> We need tub-thumpers like this.
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

-- 
Wojtek
http://wsokol.blogspot.com/