Giuliani on Peace: Ultimately, It's Just Too Unrealistic

Brian Doherty | August 15, 2007

Jim Henley (occasional reason contributor) has some grim laffs with Rudy's foreign policy manifesto, which just appeared in Foreign Affairs' august pages. A sample from Henley:

It’s full of lies, oversimplifications and vagueness, but makes up for all that by being very, very tedious. Because the genre requires him to name-check every part of the world - perhaps to assure the alleged author that it exists, perhaps to reassure the FA reader that the alleged author has heard of the world - you get whole sections of “I see India out there tonight. Keep rocking, India! And lemme give a shoutout to my peeps in Germany!”

........

* You will not enjoy a day of peace so long as Rudy has anything to say about it. Peace is something we will “achieve” in the distant future when the lion has been clubbed senseless with the lamb.

......Rudy Giuliani presents a splendid plan for spending the nation into bankruptcy in a futile pursuit of continued dominance. Lucky for Rudy, since he’s demanding to blow absurd amounts of money on defense rather than tax cuts or domestic programs, no approved pundit or established journalist will ask him “How are you going to pay for all that?” Because those are the rules: military spending is free!

Comments

Minion of URKOBOLD/the Colonel|8.15.07 @ 3:47PM|#

DAMMIT YOU KIDS!!!!!

DUNDER(HEAD)OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

DID YOU KNOW 187 YEARS AGO I SAT OUTSIDE OF RANDALL PARK MALL NEAR CLEVELAND AND COLLECTED 10, 326,883,776.2235 SIGNATURES TO ALLOW FOR SIGNING OF PETITIONS WITH SIGNATURES?

I'VE DONE MORE FOR THE LP THAN YOU NEWBIES EVER HAVE.

GROW UP. YEAH. GROW UP.

WHO ARE YOU TELLING ME TO GROW UP? YOU GROW UP. NO YOU GROW UP. [PUNCHING]

*the management wish to apologise for the following riot, for dumping and piling on, and for the next three messages here.

|8.15.07 @ 3:55PM|#

You know, I've been thinking. We're never going to be more powerful compared to the rest of the world that we are right now. Why not conquer it?

Sean Connery|8.15.07 @ 4:03PM|#

I call King of Scotland!

Syloson of Samos|8.15.07 @ 4:05PM|#

Pro Libertate,

That time has passed.

Timothy|8.15.07 @ 4:09PM|#

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

lunchstealer|8.15.07 @ 4:10PM|#

Mmm lionburgers and lamb chops!

|8.15.07 @ 4:12PM|#

Nah, we could do it. First we take Australia, collecting two units a turn, then we conquer Asia, etc. It's okay, everyone secretly wants to be American now, anyway. Pax Americana! Free cookies to all our new states!

I hope Rudy adopts my plan. Dibs on Cuba!

|8.15.07 @ 4:14PM|#

Asia's crowded, Europe's too old.
Africa is far too hot and Canada's too cold.
South America stole our name.
Let's drop the big one, and see what happens.

We give them money, but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful.
They don't respect us, so let's suprise 'em.
We'll drop the big one and pulverize 'em.

|8.15.07 @ 4:18PM|#

See, Syloson of Samos? Even joe's in. What country do you want to be proconsul--I mean, governor of, joe?

|8.15.07 @ 4:26PM|#

First we take Australia, collecting two units a turn, then we conquer Asia, etc.

I preferred to take Africa and hold on to Southern Europe and the Middle East to control the invasion routes and deny my opponents Asia and Europe. Depending how the battles between the other players went, I would then do one of move north to take Europe, east to take Asia or west to seize South America.

There was also the "American" strategy, which depended on holding both North and South America, and taking the "bridge" states of Iceland, Kamtchatka and West Africa [?] to deny control of Europe, Asia and Africa respectively.

Avoid a land war in Asia until the closing stages.

|8.15.07 @ 4:31PM|#

See -- Randy Barnett was right, all libertarians aren't anti-war afterall.

Syloson of Samos|8.15.07 @ 4:31PM|#

Pro Libertate,

Well, here's my cloak as a gift.

Episiarch|8.15.07 @ 4:40PM|#

You know, I've been thinking. We're never going to be more powerful compared to the rest of the world that we are right now. Why not conquer it?

You know, when I was a child (say, 10) and not fully cognizant of concepts such as non-aggression, I learned about the end of WWII and the nuclear bomb. This would have been in the early 80s and we were still in the height of the Cold War. My thought was, "why, when we had the only functioning nuclear weapons, didn't we just crush the USSR and this whole stupid Cold War charade would never have happened?"

Your comment just reminded me of that.

thoreau|8.15.07 @ 4:46PM|#

Is spending 50% of the world's military budget really enough to be safe? Shouldn't it be at least 75%, just to be sure?

Timothy|8.15.07 @ 4:51PM|#

First we take Australia, collecting two units a turn, then we conquer Asia, etc

But what happens when the truck is really full of SAND?

|8.15.07 @ 4:54PM|#

We'll drop the big one and pulverize 'em.

You spelled "privatize" wrong.

|8.15.07 @ 4:55PM|#

Is spending 50% of the world's military budget really enough to be safe? Shouldn't it be at least 75%, just to be sure?

That's true, if we're spending 50% that means our enemies(everyone else) are also spending 50%. When you stop to consider that the terrorists don't get included in "military spending", We're actually losing ground.

|8.15.07 @ 4:55PM|#

Aresen,

The beauty of the plan is that we start with like 250 pieces. And some countries might join out of some sort of pan-English unity. Want in? The State of Canada can have control of the Arctic Circle.

thoreau,

The beauty of this plan is that, once the U.S. straddles the globe like a colossus, our military budget will go to zero. Granted, the Ministry of the Interior may need to be beefed up to quell insurrections here and there, but that's much cheaper than dealing with other sovereign nations.

Syloson of Samos,

Oooh, nice. With a purple fringe, too!

Brian|8.15.07 @ 5:03PM|#

"But unless we pursue our idealistic goals through realistic means, peace will not be achieved."

War=peace, yadda-yadda.

Did his writer scream like Dean when was finished writing that?

thoreau|8.15.07 @ 5:12PM|#

PL-

But what if rebels establish moon bases and then try to attack The United Planet of America? Would that count as an external threat needing a military response, or would you try to use the discredited "law enforcement model"?

|8.15.07 @ 5:21PM|#

thoreau,

There's a flaw in your question. If we act now and conquer the Earth in, say, the next five years, then there will be no moonbase (other than one we might build with our peacetime surplus) to contend with. If an American space colony later secedes, well, at least they'll be Americans.

|8.15.07 @ 5:41PM|#

Guiliani's article contains the word "9/11" in the opening sentence, in both of the two concluding paragraphs, and a few more sprinkled around in the body of the text in case you missed the subtle campaign theme.

|8.15.07 @ 6:07PM|#

jh,

He should be more subtle, as in:

We shouldn't worry about countries that are benign. Eleven of them...

|8.15.07 @ 6:36PM|#

I'm glad we are the strongest.It's the reason there have been no major wars since WW II.That being said,we can remove troops from Korea and Europe and quit using the military for U.N. peace keeping and nation building.I had no problem with the Iraq war but would have withdrawn to the oil fields and let the Iraqis take care of themselves.Thus letting despots in the middle east[Iran and Saudi Arabia] know we will not tolerate any agression.But in truth we will go bankrupt through S.S and Medicare before military spending bring us down.

|8.15.07 @ 6:39PM|#

Don't forget Japan, they've been suckling the teet of U.S. protection since WWII.

|8.15.07 @ 6:48PM|#

True about Japan,but that is mostly naval power.It's important to keep that in Asia to deter China.Very few people understand the power of one U.S. carrier group.There's not a navy in the world that can match just one.

libertreee|8.15.07 @ 7:00PM|#

Thus letting despots in the middle east[Iran and Saudi Arabia] know we will not tolerate any agression-Michael Pack

So, we use aggression to let others know we don't tolerate aggression? Since Sadaam had nothing to do with 9-11, I fail to see the aggression we won't tolerate.

but that is mostly naval power.It's important to keep that in Asia to deter China.Very few people understand the power of one U.S. carrier group.There's not a navy in the world that can match just one

I don't think the folks on Okinowa care that its mostly naval power.
And actually, many analysts believe that Iran or North Korea could take out at least one carrier with missiles. And they are very vulnerable to those who have submarines.

Definitely out of Europe and Korea, btw. But in Asia I think your military footprint goes too far for my taste.

Russ 2000|8.15.07 @ 7:02PM|#

You know, I've been thinking. We're never going to be more powerful compared to the rest of the world that we are right now. Why not conquer it?

I hate goddamn do-gooders.

|8.15.07 @ 7:28PM|#

We really don't need Okinawa as much.We have Gaum and other islands.Remember,Taiwan is an important ally and trading partner.As for the Arabs we have been soft on them for years and I believe the Saudi's are in need of a lesson.The Persians are another matter.Most of the people are quite nice and would embrace the world if given a chance.I expect that goverment to fall from with in.In Iraq we were in a low level war since 1990 and it needed to be resolved.Leaving and letting Saddam remain in place was not an option.Remeber,he took one country and could have rolled through Arabia.I place the blame on the Iraqi's for not forming a civilized country.They fared much better than Germany and Japan did during WW II.Japan doesn't even have any resources.

|8.15.07 @ 8:06PM|#

Michael Pack,

It's more than just naval power. Right after WWII, a stipulation in the treaty stated that Japan was NEVER to have a standing military again.

The U.S. provided for their defense, and as a result, their economy wasn't burdened by defense spending. This let to their economic boom in the 80's.

It would have happened sooner if it were not for a wicked Tsunami that hit in the 60's.

But professor Taktix, you say, Japan has a military now.

True, because as time went on and Japan clearly had no intentions of ruling the world again, they began to relax the treaty's restrictions. Technically, we were Japan's miliraty for a good 30 years or so.

Wait a minute, did that make them our colony?

|8.15.07 @ 8:07PM|#

Japan's military...

arrrggghhhh!

|8.15.07 @ 8:31PM|#

Yes I remember,it was written into their constitution by the U.S.Their wanting to build up because of China,just as Taiwan has.The 6th fleet has prevented war in the Staits of Formosa.It'a a sad fact that none of our allies have much in the way of military power.Europe has fed on us for years.

|8.15.07 @ 8:47PM|#

Holy shit. Is Michael Pack serious?

|8.15.07 @ 8:56PM|#

Yes I am.We spend too much protecting our friends but we have had little choice.I think most of us would just like to be left alone,but, when you look at the number of countries that are free because of our intervention maybe it was worth it.

|8.15.07 @ 9:00PM|#

Holy shit. Is Michael Pack serious?

Apparently, but at least he's not running for President like Rudy.

|8.15.07 @ 9:22PM|#

Too bad I'm not,you could say bye to the drug war,the Patriot act,Homeland security and much more I had my way.Oh,and the Saudis wouldn't get a pass any more.

|8.15.07 @ 9:40PM|#

I hate goddamn do-gooders.

I know, I'm an idealist. But, like Rudy said, we can't have peace until we defeat all opposition.

Chavez is a thug|8.15.07 @ 11:06PM|#

"True, because as time went on and Japan clearly had no intentions of ruling the world again, they began to relax the treaty's restrictions. Technically, we were Japan's miliraty for a good 30 years or so."


Actually pacifism is mandated by an Article in the Japanese constitution and not merely a treaty. And their military is still forbidden from using force in any offensive capacity at all, regardless of circumstance.
As a matter of fact they are trying to change the law so that the Japanese defense force can return fire if they witness their allies being fired upon. You will find this link very educational
http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/414839

Notice the use of the word almost in the first sentence.

Dave B.|8.16.07 @ 1:00AM|#

If we conquered the world, we wouldn't have to deal with Dan T telling us to move every time we don't like a federal law. Isn't that reason enough?

highnumber|8.16.07 @ 1:19AM|#

Can I have France?

I want England, too.

I'm done.

Well, give me Mexico, too. I need a good supply of tequila and that's in my top three favorite foreign countries, oops, extra-American states, anyway.

belle waring|8.16.07 @ 2:59AM|#

priorities, people. remember, the nation that controls madagascar, controls the world. I say we start there.

|8.16.07 @ 8:20AM|#

ProLib,

"First we take Australia, collecting two units a turn, then we conquer Asia, etc"

First things first. You have to take Karelia SSR right off the bat. I suggest an industrial complex in India as well.

|8.16.07 @ 8:50AM|#

Ah, kohlrabi, you speak the truth. Build lots of tanks, too.