On Rubio and Cruz, the GOP, and “National Defense”

While reading through my twitter feed about the most recent (and pointless) GOP debate, I spotted a quote from Marco Rubio defining conservative, specifically: “conservatism is about limited government, free enterprise, and a strong national defense.”

Knowing what I know aboot Rubio’s position when it comes to “national defense”, as well as some things aboot Cruz (there are no other viable candidates except the asshat with the stupid hair who can go fuck himself), I’m suspecting there’s a disconnect between the “defense” and the limited government. And I’ll also explain why I won’t support either candidate.

First, a little explanation is in order about my view of foreign policy. We have been getting into shit with Islamic countries as far back as I can remember. As in when I was 6, and the Iranian hostage crisis was leading the national news every night (back when people actually watched it because no internet).  As I learned much later, this was a response to our governments continued efforts to prop up a corrupt dictator that was friendly to us, who the Iranian people (and the extremists leading them) overthrew. (I know this is simplifying it a bit, but it’s easier to spot a pattern this way.

Iraq. We supported the asshole Saddam Hussein, so as to stop those “evil” bastards in Iran. Then Saddam became inconvenient, by which I mean he decided to invade one of our non-asshole allies. So after smacking his dick in the dirt (and bombing his military back to the stone age), we then deposed him hoping to put in a friendly regime. Now a large part of the country hates us, a good portion like Iran, and a segment happens to be todays GOP “scare the shit out of America” acronym, ISIS.

Afghanistan. After we laughed as the Soviets Union was driven the hell out by freedom fighters we supported (AKA the Taliban nowadays), their government decided to be bigger dicks than the Soviets, including destroying ancient wonders in the name of their perversion if Islam, as well as being a safe haven for terrorists including the goat-raper Osama Bin Laden. After 9/11, it was kill time. So we went to Afghanistan, blew up the Taliban, and put in a relatively friendly government. 16 years later… fuck me sideways, we’re still there, and the ol’ Taliban is coming back.

As for Osama, his reason to wage jihad was our continued occupation of the holy land (that shitstain known as Saudi Arabia).

Do you see the pattern? We go into countries. We piss off the people. We topple governments. We “assist” them in free elections which generally result in friendly regimes. And then shit goes to shit in a shitbasket (it’s a lot of shit).

So when I see Rubio and Cruz both advocating starting shit with Iran immediately (since we only signed a treaty to prevent MOAR WARZ PLZ, and a call to build up our military again (in a post-Cold War world where there is no real enemy to challenge us to a game of Mutually Assured Destruction (Russia is a hot mess, China is too tied to us economically, and everyone else is either an ally or a grease stain compared to us right now), I don’t see a point. Plus, both candidates want to scream about the evils of “radical Islam” and how we have to defeat an idea (which can’t really be done, especially when the idea is fed my our constant intervention in every part of the world). Rubio wants to “Undo the damage caused by sequestration by returning to Secretary Gates’ fiscal year 2012 budget baseline,” because limiting the size and scope of an out of control government budget takes a backseat to building the war machine to surpass the next 8, 9, or 10 countries (currently the next 7). And Cruz crows on about “Two terms of the disastrous Obama-Clinton foreign policy have had one useful effect: we now know what the world starts to look like without America,” forgetting that most of what Obama and Clinton did was a continuation of the Bush-Cheney doctrine (only stupider), and Clinton herself is as much a war hawk as Rubio and Cruz (just ask Libya).

Both of their sites essentially declare that we need to grow the military, attack more people, and start more shit, all in the name of “national defense.” They talk about American exceptionalism, as though what freedoms we have also gives us the right to impose our values at the point of a gun on any nation that gets out of line.

(To clarify, I’m not saying our country isn’t great in many ways that most countries aren’t. But our personal freedoms are under attack from the relentless creep of government, and we don’t even crack the top 10 in economic freedom anymore. So when the term “exceptionalism” gets thrown out, it tends to almost smack of the pulpit: less a statement of how we adhere to principles of liberty, and more a mindless chunk of dogma thrown out like much of the political red meat.)

So when I see the leading candidates of the GOP are both war-hungry, and willing to commit us to endless war to try to end an enemy that can’t be defeated by bombing them (because the bombing creates more of them), and continue with the same doctrine that has been failing for decades (the Iranian hostage crisis was over 35 years ago), and are willing to endlessly grow a part of the government to do it, I know I can’t support either of them.


(One additional side note: I found this additional piece on Marco Rubio’s site, while looking into his national security plan: “Empower our intelligence community by permanently extending Section 215 of the Patriot Act.” This is the same section that was used by the Government (mainly the NSA) to spy on the American people, asking us to give up our essential liberty for temporary security. To that, Mr Rubio, I say fuck you sir. Fuck you).

About patrickmspeaks

Father, tech-head, political sage, and the Illustrious One of (little) 3x2 fame, I have been blogging for a few years now, and want to stretch in new directions, discover new things, and redefine redefining just for the fun of it. Nonetheless, having produced a pointless paragraph about me, I'll stop before something bursts.
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to On Rubio and Cruz, the GOP, and “National Defense”

  1. jerrycritter says:

    There may not be much we agree on, but you pretty well nailed it with this post. I agree with you on your Rubio-Cruz national defense analysis. I won’t be voting for either one of them either, but that probably doesn’t surprise you.

Comments are closed.