[Original post December 17, 2011 which is to say 2011-12-17 (scroll down for edits)]
Conversation from Facebook (where it will be harder and harder to find):
Valerie Lemon , from his web site http://www.buddyroemer.com/issues , “Strengthening National Defense
America has always led in expanding freedom and democracy across the world. I believe that we need a foreign policy that is firmly rooted in this proud tradition and ready to confront the new challenges of the 21st century. We need a President who is free to lead our friends and allies with clear conviction and unparalled strength.”.
William Waugh Oh…ok – gotcha. I was aware of this, but I did not take from this and similar statements, that he is NOT for Peace – I took it to mean he intends to continue our tradition of protecting basic human rights for those being oppressed anywhere and he is simply not planning on allowing us to be in the dangerous and foolish position of having our guard down. In that end, I understand that this can mean defending and protecting through diplomacy and if needed, military action. As an American, I would hope we would plan in this way – I would NOT want to live in a country that backed away from doing the right thing – whatever it takes, to stop innocent people from being treated terribly. That is not to say, I would want us to “but our noses in” unnecessarily and w/out cause. I want to live in an America that won’t Pick a Fight, but won’t back down from one when all other options have been exhausted.
Valerie Lemon , “protecting human rights abroad” with military is a false narrative propagated by the ruling class in the US. They are very selective about whom they “protect”, and the outcome is always in favor of their gaining more power over resources and paying more for weapons and munitions. The annual expenditure on the US military approximates that of all other countries put together. That is more than necessary for defense by a large factor. Are for example the peoples of New Zealand and Switzerland in danger from insufficient military defense of their countries? I advocate that US reduce annual expenditure to $1 less than what the spies say China is spending, and then claim proudly to be #2 in the world in rank by annual military expenditure. And challenge China to try to take our place as #2.
William Waugh I do not disagree with some of what you are saying. Certainly there are times when the US, under the pretense of being a “Good Samaritan” or Protector, is actually motivated by specific “agenda”, but I can’t throw the baby out w/the bathwater – I must choose from the field presented to me at this time and right now I see no other MORE satisfactory alternative and I don’t expect to EVER find any one candidate that will satisfies 100% of each and every expectation I do have. Do you have in mind a better choice?
Ms. Lemon, thank you for continuing the discussion.
What is the baby?
Ms. Lemon, I can understand if you choose to be a multi-issue voter. That is the normal thing to do, and I would favor that under normal circumstances. In the current circumstances, I am a one-issue voter. My one issue is a fellow named Warren Peace. The wars for oil and for world dominance perpetrated by the US political system as it has been behaving in actual fact for some time now, amount to mass murder, torture, and lawless destruction. To me, nothing else counts as so important as bringing these wars to an end, and no other factor will override that one for me in examining a candidate for the presidency of the US, or for US Senator or Representative, and probably for office in my State as well.
There is not only the “do unto others” moral reason to oppose murder and torture. Ending the wars will bring about a tremendous economic advantage for the US and the people who live in the US. The resources saved can go to food, water, medicine, other necessities for the population so more can live in reasonable comfort and fewer need live in poverty or worse (Pres. Aristide of Haiti expressed a desire to raise his people from misery to poverty).
I have two candidates to suggest to you who from what they say appear to be on the same side as I am in regard to the US wars: Jill Stein, MD, and Ron Paul, MD.
One of the people who write in one of the political fora I follow expresses the concern that Dr. Paul is not in favor of legal, safe, publicly funded abortion (not that person’s words but my guess as to what they mean). However, I suggest that it is possible the tremendous economic saving for the US economy of not buying the bombs, fuel, airplanes, etc. that go into the immoral and illegal wars, there will follow so much general rise in standard of living, that significantly more women who want abortions will be able to pay for them. That effect could more than make up for any reduction in availability of safe and legal abortions for poor that would result from the President being opposed to them. After all, the office of the President of the US is not all-powerful in regard to the laws affecting the provision of abortion.
So, again, I support Jill Stein for the first round of voting at AE*, and Ron Paul if Stein is defeated before the last round but Paul isn’t.
* AE — http://AmericansElect.org/