Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:...

Well I certainly appreciate educated responses, especially from a couple of Dakka's heavy hitters!

True that it's not hard to predict a recession, but his was a voice clamouring for attention on the subject during the middle of the bubble when money was being exchanged and created hand over fist. I believe they're beginning to find that alot more people knew this was coming, but unlike Dr. Paul, they grabbed as much as they could before jumping ship. I'm speaking of bankers and traders now, not congress. Dr. Paul has been "that crazy gold standard guy" and many other names, but he's been consistent and outspoken in his warnings about our system and while he's not the only smart (ymmv) guy out there, he has been one of the most outspoken and genuine guys representing us in congress. And I like that.

I've already said that I'm not as educated as I should be to endorse a gold standard, and I do appreciate everybody's thoughts on the topic. Perhaps what I should have said was not a move in that direction, but more a move away from 9:1 fiat banking system we currently have. I simply don't understand how that type of economy can exist in perpetuity without finally requiring either a complete re-valutation (not sure if that's the right word) of our dollar, or bringing on a time when it becomes common to carry around $100 bills to pay for daily snacks and such.

I wish I had immediate links on hand to explain why I think the left is destroying our autonomy, so I'll concede the point. The Pakistani example is a case of us promoting democracy in one country (Iraq) and supporting a friendly dicatatorship in another (Pakistan.) When the people ousted Musharraf and elected an unfriendly government it was a perfect example of Democracy at work. But we lost because the democratically elected government has a much stronger anti-USA sentiment. And all of the military aid, to the tune of billions of dollars is now in hands of people with much more sympathy for our enemies in the region.

dogma wrote: That's true, but I'd contend that such a statement is a significant case of confusing correlation and causation.

That's really the main point of contention in the entire debate between Ron Paul and his counterparts in the Republican party. You and I could go blue in the face trying to argue the point, so I'll just respectfully disagree

Lint wrote:The Pakistani example is a case of us promoting democracy in one country (Iraq) and supporting a friendly dicatatorship in another (Pakistan.) When the people ousted Musharraf and elected an unfriendly government it was a perfect example of Democracy at work. But we lost because the democratically elected government has a much stronger anti-USA sentiment. And all of the military aid, to the tune of billions of dollars is now in hands of people with much more sympathy for our enemies in the region.

I don't think I would consider Musharraf to be a dictator, actually, barring his last year in office, I would consider him one of the most significant supporters of Pakistani democracy there has ever been. Unlike prior Pakistani heads of state, he actually deferred to the Supreme Court (though not all the time) and allowed relatively free elections. Additionally, much of the controversies he encountered towards the end of his rule were directly related to unpopular state laws regarding the autonomy of Islamic courts, and attempts at fighting corruption (not related to himself or his own supporters).

Ultimately, the Pakistani state is just one more unconsolidated democracy, and we spent a good deal of money attempting to see it consolidated in a manner sympathetic to US interests. It didn't work, but that's always a chance you take in diplomacy, and the consequences we might suffer as a result are likely to be minimal; at most some US military or civilian casualties that are tied to weaponry given to Pakistan.

I'd argue that his unpopularity was more due to his support of the United State's war effort in the region.

I'd also argue that our unpopularity in the country has less to do with the failure of outright diplomacy and more to do with our military actions against the civilian population, and our blatant disregard for a soveriegn state's right to control it's own airspace. Granted, I'm torn on the necessity of our actions in region, but regardless of that they do have consequences. We can't simply do whatever we want and not pay the price as a result.

Lint wrote:I'd argue that his unpopularity was more due to his support of the United State's war effort in the region.

I think that was definitely a factor, but significantly less important than secular state policy (no independent Islamic courts, attempts at protecting women's rights, retroactive legalization of his initial coup) and his conciliatory stance with India. The US is unpopular in Pakistan, but people always tend to take a greater interest in actions that have a material effect on their daily lives, which for the most part was not the case regarding Musharraf and his sympathetic policy to the US.

Lint wrote:
I'd also argue that our unpopularity in the country has less to do with the failure of outright diplomacy and more to do with our military actions against the civilian population, and our blatant disregard for a soveriegn state's right to control it's own airspace. Granted, I'm torn on the necessity of our actions in region, but regardless of that they do have consequences. We can't simply do whatever we want and not pay the price as a result.

You misunderstand, I'm not saying we're unpopular because our diplomatic and fiscal support of Musharraf failed, I'm saying that we're unpopular because we were fiscally supporting an initially controversial, and later unpopular regime. The unpopularity of our drone strikes, and presence in Afghanistan, exacerbated that but it wasn't the primary cause of disgruntled attitudes which which have been noted as being connected to the corruption of the Musharraf regime, and the minimal impact of US aid. Many Pakistanis see the US as using their government, and thereby enabling the government to use them (and they're not wrong, we developed a nice little system for maintaining positive control), which is an attitude that began developing well before drone strikes began.