Rogue Govt debates Larry O’Connor on Foreign Policy

There needs to be more serious, substantive public debate in the Republican Party about America’s foreign policy in the Middle East. Unfortunately, Ron Paul has been the dissident voice in the GOP, and he expresses a hardline neo-isolationist point-of-view. There are other options, such as a strong deterrence model.

In a brief debate with Breitbart TV editor Larry O’Connor, I lay out the main interventionist options Americans have for effectively dealing with Islamist terrorism. What we have now is a mixed approach doomed to failure. The other half of the debate left unsaid is what the United States does for itself to make it more culturally secure and assertive.


11 thoughts on “Rogue Govt debates Larry O’Connor on Foreign Policy

  1. Now what the both of you miss out on in your debate is the simple fact of the matter. The whole point of the “War” on Iraq… Going to Lybia… Going to Syria is that the Islamic extremist are against “Crony Capitalism” and Incorporating their country. Corporations work with wealthy families in those countries and buy, sell and trade all kinds of different things in their dealings. We are not their to take over, we are they to open the door to incorporation, not democracy, large corporations like the McDonalds, Starbucks and all the other businesses that will be able to touchdown there. It is for the industrialization of these economies so that the companies can get the cheap labor and make large loans to these people in order to get buy from them for ridiculously low prices, take away American jobs and increase their bottom line.

    1. Got any evidence to back that up? Because we didn’t take any oil in Iraq, or in Libya, and as far as I know, there are no McGriddle sandwiches coming to the Middle East anytime soon.

  2. If we are not nation-building in Afghanistan, then my two deployments must have been a terrible dream. I recall beardy guys with backpacks full of $100 US bills to hand out to local leaders in NE Afghanistan in 2004. The last time (2011)I had a bad dream about going to Afghanistan, I saw a lot of international development groups building roads and wells and stuff. All finances with US $$$. Larry is experiencing some cognitive dissonance. All we are doing is flushing money down a rat hole. The Bush doctrine was “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here”. Well, as I recall, a bunch of terror arrests have been made over here. So now were are fighting “them” over there AND over here. Seems like it would be more logical to treat it as an intelligence/police issue rather than a military one. But that’s just the opinion of a two tour vet / college dropout.

  3. And if that is not good enough for you I can talk to my friend who just got back with shrapnel in his leg, chest and abdomen. I can ask the other who just missed getting shot to watch our buddy get shot while they were on patrol.

    These are general facts of what is going on and the how it is going on. There are several books from Economist that will explain this process to you, John Perkins can explain the process of using countries like those in the Middle East and Asia to Incorporate and take over. It is how Multinational Corporations are built.

    It is not just about oil, it is about all the other opportunities available once the United States gets a foot hole. Especially in the Private Defense contracts which companies secure to escort CEOs on the United states dime via government subsidiaries that cover their protections.

    1. Last time I checked, we pay other countries for their oil. That is what is referred to historically as “trade.” So flush the neo-imperialism thesis down to toilet. It doesn’t hold water.

  4. You are wrong. You go to war to increase the Stock Price of Oil Per Barrel Cost, and this increases your overall Profit Share. Understand Economics. If you did ANY investing you would know this. Also the Incorporation of those countries is well documented within in economics, and if you get an MBA in business a lot of elected reading will point it out.

    Also get a job working for a private firm overseas. Or better yet, sign up for the Military… I did. Been there and Done that. Go See for yourself.

  5. Give me a break. That’s why Genghis Khan went to war too, right? To increase his Mongol backers’ stock portfolios?

    Do you recall the 1979 Iranian revolution? Well, did we control both the Shah and the Ayatollah? Then did we cause every attack on Americans since then? Or were we simply manipulating the entire Middle East? Did we both back the mujaheddin and direct them to attack the United States? Did we both back the Iranians and Iraqis during the 1980s and direct them to take actions hostile to the U.S.? Do we both finance Islamist regimes to the tune of hundreds of billions, and are the cause of Islamists’ legitimate grievances in the West? Are we wrongfully seizing, taking, or otherwise stealing that which does not belong to us in the U.S., and if so, how?

    Such theorizing as your own is a narrow, superficial projection of the petty obsessions of the anti-capitalist West. Islam is trying to culturally subvert the West before they are swept up into modernizing forces that are a threat to their regimes. The United States is trying to prevent certain regimes and terrorist groups from acquiring wmds and especially nuclear weapons by trying to democratize countries and introduce government accountability to the masses (this is thought to be a way to prevent irrational actor scenarios).

    Occam’s razor – go for the simplest, most powerful answer. Not the one that suggests a handful of people take entire nations to war based sheerly on stock manipulation. Banks and corporations influence decisions to go to war, they neither make that decision (which can have huge political costs), nor carry out (which can have self-destructive military costs that can erode away one’s power base over time).

    For all the supposed sophistication of the left, it all boils down to the same hackneyed “everything is money” meme.

  6. Comparing Ghenghis Khan to modern military is down right foolish, and I am saying that as a person who highly admires Ghenghis Khan. The idea of destroying nations and building empires that sport your banners is no longer the way. They want to leave a few behind that hold power and then incorporate. This is the ugly truth.

    Iraq Investment and Reconstruction Task Force

    Foreign investment begins to pour into Iraq

    In Rebuilding Iraq’s Oil Industry, U.S. Subcontractors Hold Sway

    US companies in Iraq: touting for business

    1. You are not proving causation. When a nation goes to war, it follows that you need to supply troops. That means military contracts.

      I’m not going to debate this ad nauseum. I’m not interested in the Marxist Grand Unified Theory of Capitalist Neo-Imperialism. It’s a bogus, superficial argument.

  7. Do us both a favor and delete my comments. It is not an argument, this has been proven already. I got my enlistment and my discharge papers and personal experience to speak for me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s