Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Anti-American?
In his syndicated column this week, National Review Editor Rich Lowry portrays Ron Paul as leader of the "'Blame America First' libertarians," because "he tends to bring any conversation back to the malignancy of US foreign policy":
This isn't an expression of an anti-interventionism so much as a smear. It goes beyond opposition to American foreign policy to a poisonous view of America itself.
Does it? Lowry is right that Paul emphasizes the anger and resentment aroused by unjustified American intervention in other countries, but I don't see how that amounts to "a poisonous view of America itself," unless you equate America with the worst excesses of its government's foreign policy. Paul consciously harks back to an earlier tradition that favored trade and other peaceful interactions, eschewed "entangling alliances," and reserved the use of military power for national defense. If that makes him anti-American, I guess George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were anti-American too.
I explained the importance of Paul's challenge to the GOP's mindless militarism in my column yesterday.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
First!
I fear that his incident with the CNN anchor precludes the need for what his foreign policy (as POTUS) would be.
The walk-out hasn't made Google News yet (the main page, I mean). There's the slightest of chances this will blow over before it does any real damage. He's still up in the RCP polls.
"this will blow over before it does any real damage"
hmm, the disservice is in not reporting the BS; I give people credit for their judgment of media abuse
Maybe Republican primary/caucus voters aren't as stupid as we thought, and they just ignore everything on CNN.
they just ignore everything on CNN.
I ignore everything on CNN, MSNBC, and FOXNews.
And when my local paper endorses a candidate I support, I double check to make sure I havent missed something inately evil about the candidate. And most of the time, I have.
Even Bill Clinton alluded to the media's counterproductive stance regarding his wife's POTUS run
Even Bill Clinton alluded to the media's counterproductive stance regarding his wife's POTUS run
I don't know if it doomed Paul in the GOP-race, but it certainly doomed his general election chances(if he even ever had them).
I don't support Paul because I think he's electable, or because I agree with most of his policies(I don't - hell, I even support fake money). I support him because he's changing the dialog in the media - forcing issues like limited government, freedom from oppression, and imperialism to be talked about and debated.
The real Ron Paul revolution comes in 10 years when he's long gone and the people he inspired start making a difference in politics.
In theory, thats the Goldwater strategy. Only it took 16 years and Reagan fucked it up.
I dont think we can wait that long again. We need to win now, with someone who wont back down once he gets in office.
I agree with this. I've already resigned myself to the fact that his campaign is finished.
Based on what exactly?
The CNN fiasco.
Look, we're probably big RP supporters. We view him favorably. The problem is that the good majority of folks are not like us. To them, his taking off the mic during that CNN interview looks as though he either has something to hide or is ashamed of the newsletters.
His chances were doomed long ago when he failed to deal with the newsletters appropriately when they came up before. The CNN fiasco is just the latest in a string of events which would have doomed his candidacy in the general election.
finished? His campaign never really started. Neither party establishment would allow a Paul to make a serious run. Same with Cain. When a guy likes that makes a run in the polls and looks viable, be ready for some "scandal" to surface, be it 1990's harassment allegations or newsletters.
Neither party wants what Paul is talking about; each is invested in its own version of big govt. It's why the payroll tax 'issue' is currently roiling - distract the public with the allegedly dire consequences of $17 per week so they pay no attention to the crazy old man pointing out the 15T debt. Bread and Circuses.
That's exactly right.
Neither party establishment would allow a Paul to make a serious run.
Well they're doing a pretty piss-poor job of stopping him, judging by the Iowa and New Hampshire polls and his packed rallies and number of individual donors he has compared to the other front runners.
There's still hope for a Paul-endorsed Gary Johnson libertarian run.
Two other ideas for Johnson:
1. Give up the Presidential run this time, be NM Representative twice, once as a Republican, then as a Libertarian, then run as a Libertarian in 2016.*
2. Drop out now and get every other candidate to agree to make him HUD head or something like that.
*The Libertarian bit is optional.
Ron Paul can't endorse a non-GOP candidate without it coming back to haunt Rand. I don't think it will happen.
You are wrong if you think the SoCons that dominate local Iowa politics are going to be swayed by Ron Paul walking off CNN, cause they all watch Fox.
I had a nice talk with a youngster in the Paul campaign last night. I agreed to give a little speech on Ron's behalf at the caucus, but would not commit to calling people or walking door to door.
The Paul campaign is showing plenty of life and is very well organized. I still think he is going to sneak out a win in Iowa (contingent on the anti-Romney vote not bolting to Santorum).
Don't you think that one of the things that some people, particularly younger folks, find appealing about RP is the dramatic difference in hubris between him and Messrs. ROmney, GIngrich and Santorum?
IMO, this point has not been given the attention and consideration that it should.
"hell, I even support fake money"
Jasno, why do you hate poor people?
Because they smell like sour milk?
Can't argue with that.
And they tend to live in clusters...
OT: I don't know if anyone else checks in on PZ Myers' blog Pharyngula, but today he's posted a link to an anti-Ron Paul article. Also, he says that there is misogynistic comments on the article that reminds him why he hates libertarians.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/ph.....s-fanbase/
I don't know how much more the newsletter story will add to such irrational hatred of libertarians, but I'm guessing that I might have to revert back to calling myself a "liberal Republican."
Just go with classical liberal.
Sounds too didactic...I prefer queer-loving, drug-use-allowing, non-interventionist Republican...emocrat.
That requires too much explanation because of the word "liberal" in there, and it gives the impression you're a left-leaning libertarian like Bill Maher thinks he is.
Maybe "constitutionalist"?
No, because the Constitution doesn't necessarily cover everything. You can be a constitutionalist who supports statewide laws prohibiting drugs, gambling, or prostitution.
404'd
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula
Just scroll down, I guess.
I'll refrain from giving that piece of shit hack Myers any hits, thanks.
If you base your feelings for a political movement on the contents of anonymous internet posts of people who self identify as supporters of said movement, you will probably hate them all.
PZ Myers would cause you to change what you call yourself?
You know what that makes you? A pussy.
What I like to watch is Penn Jillette having a discussion with members of the atheist community about libertarianism and basically reducing them to saying, "Well, yeah, Penn. I'm all for the non-initiation of force or fraud, but the LIBRARIES (ROADS, SCHOOLS, POOR PEOPLE)!!!!"
It's good to see that you're incoherent as well as being a pussy.
Who is PZ Myers, and why should I give a rat's ass what he thinks?
And if you're afraid to call yourself a libertarian, great. Go fuck yourself. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Also, he says that there is misogynistic comments on the article that reminds him why he hates libertarians.
Jeez, maybe if we could just get him to read over here once in awhile it would change his, wait...
Myers is a douche; and I say that as a fellow atheist. He's also a political naif, so anything he says on matters political may be safely ignored.
Yes, he hates libertarians; which is unsurprising for a progressive.
Also, what Fluffy said.
The best comment is the one saying they would rather vote for Bush again than Paul. Well, at this point, voting for Obama is basically voting for Bush anyway.
God, as an atheist I hate PZ Myers.
Me too! I tried reading his blog for a while, and found him very abrasive, and his followers sycophantic. And that's before I even discovered that he's anti-libertarian.
A guy I've never heard of gets pissy over libertarians behaving like average Americans who don't walk on egg shells to appease our liberal mastahs? Oh, no!
Alt-text/caption contest.
Go!
"I'm holding a match just out of view."
"I'm Gloria Borger, and I approve this message."
"What, me worry?"
how did we not know that Damon was a fivehead?
"Hey. How you doin'?"
Read Dot Rabinowitz in WSJ today Paul is a crank---sorry to ruffle yer feathers but he's dangerous.
Dangerous?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You don't get it do you, 'sarch?
If you'd pull your naive loserdopian head out of your patchouli smellin' ass, you'd see that the only path to security is through perpetual war. WE ARE AT WAR!! You probably want to talk to the Islamo-Fasco-Terrorists? Yeah, try it, hippy.
Doba, don't even try to get through to these drugged out cosmotarian hipsters; they're a lost cause.
At least get your libertarian subgroups right.
The c-word type dont like Paul. Its the paleos that support Paul. The others wont get invited to cool parties if they support Paul.
Yeah! What robc said!
robc, I can see that you're a true libertarian patriot, unlike these libertines. They're not going to invite us to their cocktail parties any time soon. You know why? Because, they're afraid of THE TRUTH! They can't handle it.
I feel so unpatriotic. I will make amends:
"I'm gonna rise up, I'm gonna kick a little ass, Gonna kick some ass in the USA, Gonna climb a mountain, Gonna sew a flag, Gonna fly on an Eagle, I'm gonna kick some butt, I'm gonna drive a big truck, I'm gonna rule this world, Gonna kick some ass, Gonna rise up, Kick a little ass, ROCK, FLAG AND EAGLE!"
Epic.
I read that he ad-libbed that and the gang, especially Sweet Dee, had to keep it together hearing it for the first time.
That was a really good Slapdick impression.
You know the striking thing about that article?
She never actually addresses any of the claims.
She says that Paul "blames America first" and "apologizes for America" in its disputes with certain countries.
Well, before we can analyze whether he's right to do that, we'd need her to say what countries she means, and we'd also need her to give a detailed description of what she believes to be the history of interactions between the US and that country.
Your comment has as much substantive argument as Rabinowitz's entire column. That is to say, none. The column is actually libelous, and if she wrote something similar about any other candidate the response would be a lawsuit.
O, rly, Brandon? People, including journos, say bad things about politicians all the time, but rarely get sued. Why? Makes the politician look petty. Similar to the Streisand effect.
Shorter: LOL
Rabinowitz's foreign policy is "brown people bad" and "must fire drones at babies".
Another one who doesn't get it!
I bet you'd like to open up some 'meaningful dialogue' with those babies (who'll undoubtedly grow up to be terrorists). LOL! Maybe that's how things work in Australia The Land of the Grateful Dead, but the American military knows how to GET THINGS DONE! LOL!
If those babies have their sister or brother die or have their face burnt off from a U.S. cruise missile, the likelihood they'll grow up to be a terrorist is a lot higher.
I don't value the life of a white American neo-con higher than that of a brown Muslim fundamentalist. They both ascribe to the same flawed philosophy.
Just finished reading it. At least Rabinowitz didn't try to claim crusades in the Middle East are what constitute American Exceptionalism, Like Kim Strassel did in that same paper the other day.
Dorothy Rabinowitz is a hack and firmly in the pocket of Newcular Titties and believes he is a visionary.
Please forgive me for not devoting more of my time and life to this substance-free, partisan smear job.
Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Anti-American?
No. It is Pro-American, since it shields us from the "unintended consequences" of foreign entanglements. Next question.
One can show no greater support for ones country than supporting the attack on other countries. Thats why Brazilians, Canadians, Botswanas, Fijians, Danes etc. all don't really love their country, who could really love living in country so nonbelligerent.
Just thinking about how unpatriotic those countries are makes me want to wipe them off the map!
We should teach Costa Rica a lesson for not having an Army. We should invade!
Yeah, those guys must really hate their country. The whole defense policy is to hate their own country to a much greater extent than Ron Paul ever could.
The funny thing about Costa Rica is that the citizenry repelled the last invader (who happened to be an American).
Anybody who stands in the path of our Empire of Exceptionalism must be crushed into the dirt!
Undeclared war against the Mohammedan Barbary Pirates bitchez!
Murder-cannons! Homicide bomber Richard Somers!
"Undeclared war against the Mohammedan Barbary Pirates"
is self-defense...
sorry to ruffle yer feathers but he's dangerous.
That nasty screeching cunt Rabinowitz should be in a straitjacket.
Sorry if your feathers are ruffled butt is hurt.
No, it's more effective to let her rant in public. She discredits herself and can't claim she was being persecuted as she could if she were institutionalized.
Nice characterization of her, btw. Heh.
Ron Paul would probably put Ramsey Clark as his Secretary of State.
How anyone can get behind this kook racist is beyond me.
Indeed. You are The Father of Lies, aren't you?
I salute you, tgs. Finally, someone who GETS IT. LOL!
Well, Ron Paul's opponents have a problem: most Americans are really nice, decent people.
It takes unrelenting propaganda to convince Americans to support the warmongers. They cannot permit anyone to believe anything less than being a warmonger is ever acceptable.
So, they have to scream that people who refuse to support bombing and killing in the name of British, PEtrolium, supporters of Chiang Kai Heck, Israel, Japan etc are somehow beyond the pale and existential threats to civilization.
And the more the scream, the more they paint themselves into a corner.
It's like acceptance of homosexuality. At first homosexuals were universally mocked & derided in the media and the cultural view was that they were morally decrepid.
But the mismatch between the vituperation and people's actual experiences and emotional relationship with gays meant that as more and more ordinary people came out of the closet, the less and less credible the myth became.
The rhetoric will be ramped all the way up to 11, and then it will stop working.
And that will be a happy day.
Don't you understand, tarran? Not wanting to attack other countries and occupy them is dangerous! Wanting to attack and occupy them is safe! Do you see the flaw in your logic now?
Damn! Had it for a sec and lost it!
Wow. So, if we can kill all foreigners, America will be safe forever. What a genius plan they have.
We are the exceptional race. Or is it exceptional people? Exceptionalmensch?
I am not so sure about that happening, the American thirst for blood if anything, is getting worse not better.
John Quincy Adams
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
A few other bits:
She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.
...
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
This Qunicy fellow sounds VERY dangerous!
I think he was racist too.
I heard him use the "n-word" once.
Therefore everything else he ever said or did is discredited.
Thank God he could never get elected president, what a kook!
That's just crazy talk
I don't see how how it's Blame America First, more like "Blame the American Government First." The American people shouldn't take the full blame for the actions of the Pentagon and the CIA, as most of these people are unelected, besides the Commander in Chief obviously.
Sadly, I think that a lot of people think that the government is the country.
You're completely correct Zeb; that is the basic poison of democracy. It justifies everything and makes people feel like they *are* the government.
those people are typically known as liberals/progressives/Dems though Repubs are making a pretty good case for wanting a part of that mantle.
The attack on Paul is as predictable as the one on Cain. The system cannot tolerate outliers like these two gaining traction; if that happens, a large swath of the public would realize the whole Repub-Dem duopoly is bullshit.
STOP these SMEAR ATTACKS on Dr. Paul! He is the ONLY candidate in this race with the INTEGRITY needed to SAVE America!
Attacks on him or his positions directly support the WELFARE/WARFARE STATE and reveal a love of the establishment and BIG GOVERNMENT. I urge everyone to vote for Dr. Paul in your local primary if you care at all about LIBERTY!!!
http://www.ronpaul2012.com
Ok, come on, this is like the fourth different thread you've pasted this on. Do us all a favor and leave.
*leers*
You need more [brackets] if you're going to be taken seriously as a crazy person around here.
She has the random capitalization of important words down pretty good, though.
I wonder if Herc publishes a style guide for aspiring internet crazies?
Ok I lol'd.
"The Hercule Triatholon Savinien Guide to Style and Prose, Updated 2012 Edition"
includes newly updated and revised section on appropriate use of random capitalization and brackets
Excuse me, I think You mean random Capitalization of important Words.
You're going to scare the newbies off...
mandy,
get a fucking grip. Posts like that are why the people you rail at laugh at you. Of course, pundits on both sides attack Paul. Duh; they're just as invested in the establishment as the parties are. And, a lot of people have already traded liberty for govt-issued check.
Dr. Paul cured her apathy, it would seem.
and she wastes her energy screaming at the choir. What is worse - she actually believes a single elected official can "save America". Wonder how many tea party candidates elected to Congress had that same vision..and how many are now saying 'this place is even more jacked up than anyone realizes'.
I will now proceed to take a dump in Mandy's mouth.
Film at 11?
There in Sioux City, Paul said, "To declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same, this is dangerous talk."
No one says that they want to declare war on all Muslims. Hell George Bush bent over backwards to kiss Muslims asses.
But hey, that is politics. The problem is not that Paul slanders his opponents. That is how politicians roll and how they have always rolled. It is that him and his supporters whine and cry when the other side says the same about him.
If he doesn't want his motives questioned, stop questioning everyone else's motives.
Do I think Ron Paul hates America? Of course not. But I also don't think Michelle Bachman hates all Muslims or have anything but the best motives either. If Paul wants to accuse his opponents of being bigots, he can live with them accusing him of not having the best interests of the country at heart.
Which of his opponents arent bigots?
They all favor the war on drugs, which makes them bigots.
"No one says that they want to declare war on all Muslims."
By this I assume you meant to write "No one in power..."
If you really think no one from Team Red wants to declare war on all muslims, you've not heard of Pam Geller or Ann Barnhardt.
My honest evaluation of Michelle Bachmann is that she thinks that the US should have a Christian government that tolerates Jews but that views Muslims as inherently suspicious until they prove their loyalty by submission.
Since 1.2 billion Muslims won't submit to Michelle Bachmann (except for a few pets), as a practical matter that means that she does, in fact, have no other choice but to make war on all of them until they do.
That is your opinion fluffy. I think that is a complete fucking lie. I have never heard Bachman say anything like that. But it is your right to believe what you want.
But don't come whining around when Paul's opponents conclude that he thinks all of the world's evil is the US's fault.
Paul offends people not because he is an isolationist. If he were an old time, get us the hell out of everywhere and let the rotten world sort itself out, people wouldn't be so offended. But that is not what he does. He doesn't just say we shouldn't be there. he says the US is wrong and responsible for all of this harm. I am sure there is some evil in the world Paul doesn't think the US is responsible for, but whatever that is, he never seems to mention it in his speeches.
Does he love the country? Sure. But his way of showing it is telling the country what an awful bitch it is.
he says the US is wrong and responsible for all of this harm.
Bullshit.
Blowback is not about responsibility, it is about understanding why the responsible parties act the way they do.
He has never shifted the responsibility from the attackers.
That is not how it comes across. It comes across as the US is getting what it deserves. And that isn't going to play with many people outside of liberals who won't vote for Paul anyway.
Paul's explained his position, many times, in just those words. NRO interprets it disingenuously because they want to, not because the idea is too complex.
The US may not be getting what it deserves, but it is getting what it has been asking for. RP is pointing that out.
John,
I agree that Paul doesn't come off as good as he could if he was a quality speaker like Bill Clinton or Obama, but to think he's glaring at you John and blaming Americans for actions their government did to antagonize the world, well I don't know what he can say to convince you. What's patently obvious to some of us apparently isn't to you.
LIT,
I am not sure. I think Paul hung around the Rockwell clowns way too much. And he says some pretty nasty and unfair things about his opponents. Given that, I really don't give a rat's ass if his opponents do the same thing back to him.
As far as "blowback". I think he is an idiot on that regard. But events would quickly debase him of that if he ever took office. Part of me would love to see him win just to see his Rothbardite supporters be so disappointed with his actual performance in office.
John,
Have you ever considered he could be right? Or do you think the world mindlessly hates us that much?
Yeah LIT, I have seen the world. And my experience is that there are a lot of people out there you don't want to meet. They really do hate us. And they hate us for reasons that have everything to do with them and very little to do with us. He is not right.
Ok John,
The only people I've met that complain about the US culture have been hippies that hate seeing McDonalds in France, but given your anecdoteless assertion, i must yield.
You're an optimist. I'm afraid he would not disappoint them.
I was afraid there would be an over-rxn to 9/11/01 -- that Americans would call for killing millions of innocent Muslims to get "even", and that politicians would enact such a policy. I'm afraid with Prez Paul that there'd be an under-rxn to the next one.
He has said on more than one occasion, and if you look at what he advocated after 9/11 that a swift and concise response was necessary and warranted. He did not support 10 fucking years of war. Boo hoo.
also, country != government. Even with your interpretation, which is wrong, he has never said anything about the USA, merely its government.
Fine. Apply that theory to elsewhere. No on the Republican side has ever said anything about the Iranian people, just its government.
No, they're just thumping the war drums against Iran.
Yes, but if you're going to play brinkmanship with the government, its the people that will suffer.
And if all they do is *say* things about the Iranian government, then I don't have a problem. The Iranian government, like our own, has a lot of corrupt shit heads in it.
The problem is that when our corrupt shitheads take action against their corrupt shit heads, it's going to be American and Iranian people that bear the cost of that action.
That's funny, John, because both the left AND the right claim to be offended by that very (imagined) aspect of him. They have specifically cited that he in fact IS an old-timey isolationist and that's why he's so wrong.
No. People are offended by the "US is getting what it deserves" blowback bullshit.
I've been hearing a lot less of that as the wars have dragged on and on and more has been revealed about some of the more deplorable behavior committed by our military in the name of...whatever it is.
Recently, all the criticisms have been of Paul, the isolationist crank who wants to take us back to the horrors of pre-TR disengagement (which is a load of shit).
Only because people like you read him as saying "US is getting what it deserves." He's never said those words. Various news agencies twist his analysis of blowback and create them out of thin air.
"Blowback" is not "bullshit", it's common sense. And Paul is not saying "US is getting what it deserves," he's saying that actions have consequences, and if you want to reduce the chance of terrorist attacks by Middle Eastern actors, getting out of the Middle East is a better mechanism than expanding our military presence in the Middle East.
You could argue that "they would hate us anyway*" but that's like Obama's argument that the recession would have been worse without the stimulus: you can't prove it, and it's not a credible argument because of the long history of bad decisions that can very easily be argued to be causative.
* I believe you already advanced that argument, but maybe not. At least one of the regulars on this board certainly has, but I'm too lazy to google for it.
^^^that is called a clue. BOTH SIDES use similar terminology to marginalize Paul. Why do you suppose that is? It's because amid a bit of the crazy is a hell of a lot Paul says that makes perfect sense to most folks. If the sense-making parts take root and become mainstream, what will the R/D duopoly do then?
I'm telling you...this is all a big game, with smokescreens and distractions tossed up to keep people from even considering the big picture, let alone talking about it.
For example, we're a few years from being Greece or Italy, and what's the topic in DC? $17 a week for keeping the payroll tax at 4% rather than 6%. It's like the ginned up outrage over a $5 monthly ATM fee when the govt has mis-spent trillions.
You have to call it for what it is. America is addicted to mucking around overseas. It dates all the way back to TR. The Cold War only made it worse. We don't know how to give it up.
And as for all of the talk about America's good nature, etc..., good intentions does not a good foreign policy make.
I want examples.
Because with a specific example, we can examine the merits of the claim.
I never hear him talking about the most hoary liberal "Blame America" talking points, like how everything wrong in Africa today is George Washington's fault for owning slaves, or about how the United Fruit company destroyed Latin America.
He says very specific things about very specific issues, and when we talk about those specific issues we can see if he's right or not.
The reason Rabinowitz (and John) don't want to talk cases but want to make the general statement that he "blames America" is because they know that in a shitload of cases, there would be a solid basis for blaming America.
He says that Bush was "gleeful" after 9-11 so that he could invade Iraq.
He is just fucking stupid on these issues. He says that Though it is hard for many to believe, honest studies show that the real motivation behind the September 11 attacks and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life. Neither is it our religion, or our wealth," he said in a statement posted on his congressional website.
"Rather, it is primarily occupation. If you were to imagine for a moment how you would feel if another country forcibly occupied the United States, had military bases and armed soldiers present in our hometowns, you might begin to understand why foreign occupation upsets people so much."
Really Ron? Last I looked not a single Iraqi or Afghan has been caught plotting a terror attack against US soil since we went into either country. Our occupations offend Saudis and Somalis so much they can't help themselves I guess.
He is saying one of two things there. Either the people of the middle east are right to hate us, in which case we are getting what we deserve. Or they are irrational nuts who can't be dealt with, in which case I would say it is Ron Paul who hates Muslims not Bachmann.
Paul honestly seems to believe that the only reason is a terrorist is because of the US occupations. Listen to this exchange with Ben Stein.
BEN STEIN: Why should we stop them? Because they are terrorists and murderers and they're very anti-American.
RON PAUL: Why are they terrorists?
BEN STEIN: Surely congressman ?
RON PAUL: Why are they terrorists?
BEN STEIN: They're terrorists and murders because they are psychos.
RON PAUL: They're terrorists because we're occupiers.
http://factreal.wordpress.com/.....009-video/
Does Paul really believe that they are only terrorists because we are occupiers? He goes out of his way to say so. Sorry, but that is weapons grade stupid.
Paul has stated over and over again that the only reason, not a reason, but the only reason that terrorist ever attack the US is because of US actions. That is saying in so many words we are getting what we deserve.
Maybe if Paul would just fucking admit that perhaps some people attack us because they are assholes and not everything bad that happens is the direct result of US action, people wouldn't think he has no use for the country.
Can you explain why these psychos aren't attacking Switzerland or Canada? Aren't they predominantly white countries with a high standard of living?
They attack Canada all of the time. There have been several very dangerous no shit plots broken up in Canada. One planned to blow up the Parliament. And they also attack places like Bali and Tanzania and Spain.
The US is pretty far down on the list of victims of terrorism. They mostly attack places not named the US.
What?
You mind providing some context to your statement? How many foreign born terrorists are trying to blow up canada?
Does Ben Stein really believe that they are only terrorists because "they're psychos", which is about as big a childish non-explanation as has ever come out of an otherwise very smart man's mouth.
I would say calling someone who tries to blow up a plane with them on it a "psycho" is a pretty good description.
And that sounds a lot less childish than "they do this because we occupy them".
Yes, they're really just sociopaths who sit around all day dreaming up innovative new ways to wreak havoc on the US. Nothing at all motivated the psychotic behavior. Nothing.
yeah. they are psychotic assholes who live in broken societies and countries who have bought into a crazy ideology. Yeah, people do that sometimes. People didn't become Nazis and start sticking people in ovens because France gave Germany a raw deal at Versailles. They did it because they were psychotic assholes looking for any excuse to be psychotic assholes.
John,
Most people attribute the rise of the Nazis because of the harsh conditions of the treaty of Versailles. It basically imposed bankruptcy on Germany. In those conditions, with the government looking so powerless, the Nazis riled popular sentiment and general prejudice.
If Germany had been treated with more respect, chances are the Nazi's wouldn't have stood a chance of gaining power (like the ultra right wing parties in Europe still today).
ultra right wing parties in Europe still today.
LOLWUT?
There's a lot of loaded words there, but not much of an explanation. You're engaging in slinging of meaningless labels "psychotic" doesn't explain a goddamn thing. Neither does "crazy". Your uncle might be "crazy". So might a terrorist.
You rely on the crutch of "they are assholes, so their motivations are purely because they're assholes". What the fuck does that mean? Nothing. It's just a mental crutch for the ones who only want to think until just before it becomes uncomfortable.
He also said only the government could fix the problems with the economy back in 08. So I'd be willing to believe the psycho thing.
Wait, explain how this is false.
And what about the ~5000 dead soldiers that we shipped right to them for easy access?
That is not the "terrorism" he is talking about Demonocles. HE is talking about them attacking us here.
His point is foreign occupation/intervention is what makes them so angry they are willing to kill themselves to hurt us. If some of us are there, it's easier for them to kill us there. Your point about them not attacking us on US soil is being disingenuous.
How many Arab terror attacks were there on US interests in the century prior to 1945?
And how many Arab attacks were there on British and French interests?
It's funny, the British faced terror attacks from ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE for a century - Irish people, Indian people, Jews and Arabs, Kenyans, Boers, the Chinese.
During that time frame, US interests were attacked by none of those people, but we WERE attacked by...Native Americans, Pancho Villa, and Filipinos.
Hmmmmm...I am starting to see a pattern here.
Gingrich said that he didn't want any mosques built in New York until synagogues could be built in Saudi Arabia.
That is definitively a statement that Islam is the enemy, dude. Because he literally can't imagine the idea that there might be real, live, loyal, friendly American Muslims, or real, live, friendly Muslims from allied states, who might deserve to be left to worship in peace regardless of what the Saudis do.
But you know what? It's OK if we disagree about Bachmann's Christian Dominionism or whether Newt is a pinhead. The important question is whether or not you accept that I actually think these things about Bachmann or Gingrich. Because you accused Paul of deliberately slandering Bachmann by saying something no one believed - and if I believe it, that can't be the case. If I believe it, maybe Paul does too.
How is not building a mosque near the site of a mass murder committed by Muslims denying every Muslim the right to be in peace? They didn't want the mosque two blocks away from the WTC site.
We get it fluffy you hate Gingrich and Bahcmann. I don't like them either. But you do yourself no good by lying about them. And further, if you are going to lie about them, you can't whine when people lie and assume the worst about your butt boy Paul.
Because it's a free country for Muslims too, and it's a bigoted shithead move to deny them that right?
Who is denying them anything? If the KKK wanted to build a clubhouse two blocks down from the Ebenezer Baptish Church, would people objecting to it mean we were not a "free country"? Why did they want to build it there other than to put a thumb in people's eye?
"They're just doing this to be dicks" isn't sufficient justification to restrict freedom of speech (see modern KKK marches) and it isn't sufficient justification to restrict economic liberty either.
But being pissed off about said dickdom is hardly denying the other side the ability to live in peace.
You are so unselfaware it's amazing.
My entire point is that he, like you, would compare it to the KKK.
That comparison is only possible if there are NO Muslims who are really Americans, or who are really our allies.
ALL Muslims have to be part of the evil group that attacked us. ALL Muslims have to be equivalent to members of the KKK.
If there are any Muslims who are legitimate Americans or legitimate allies of the United States, saying that they can't build a mosque somewhere because of something Saudi Arabia is doing doesn't make any sense.
That is definitively a statement that Islam is the enemy, dude.
----------------------------
Islam frequently goes out of its way to perpetuate that sentiment. Is anyone even surprised any more when the person behind some plot is named al-Kaboom or some such? Come on.
Have you ever noticed that all of the perpetrators are human?
Sure, most humans probably wouldn't do anything like that, but it makes you wonder whether we shouldn't just get rid of all the humans, to be absolutely safe.
...views Muslims as inherently suspicious until they prove their loyalty by submission conversion.
FTFY
In all fairness to RP, maybe he was thinking about Ricky Santorum
Of course they don't want to declare war on all Muslims, that would be ridiculous. They just want to declare war on some countries that are largely populated by Muslims, which is much different. Isn't it?
But it's with good intentions, don't you see?
Ron Paul might be guilty of hyperbole in that statement but one only need to revisit the hysteria surrounding the NYC Mosque to see he isn't all that far off the mark.
If you admit he is guilty of hyperbole stop whining about other people doing the same to him.
All politics is whining. At some point, we elect one of them.
True.
I agree that Paul is guilty of some strawman bashing here. He should instead talk about how stupid it is to fight wars for or against abstract concepts like "Democracy" or "Terrorism".
That's way too far over the heads of the average voter.
http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....-1452.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....-1588.html
First in Iowa, as of Monday... We'll see where the dust settles.
It's the Thursday before Christmas. If the media were smart and wanted to really hurt him, they would have saved this until after he wins/place/shows in Iowa. But they couldn't help themselves.
I think the GOP was getting desperate. They are worried that a win in Iowa will have carryover.
That would be fun. They play their best card and it's ineffective anyway.
I predict the newsletters amount to nothing. It's not like Iowans Kerry Howley and Will Wilkinson were going to vote in the Republican caucus.Obama isn't on the ballot.
ISU/Gazette/KCRG 12/8 - 12/18 333 LV PAUL 28 18 25 11 7 5 0 0 Paul +3
The Des Moines Register is the gold standard for local polls, but I would also put a lot of stock into this local poll over any national poll.
And of course Paul told Michelle Bachmann that the IEA report on the Iranian nuclear program was "misleading. The exchange was
Bachmann noted simply, "It's an IAEA report." It was as if she were saying that if the IAEA is finally saying Iran is after a bomb, then even the most dovish institutions agree with what American hawks have been saying for years. The IAEA has been slower than many in the U.S. foreign policy establishment to conclude that Tehran is in fact pursuing nuclear weapons as its end game.
"That, that is not, that is not true," Paul said again. "They produced information that led you to believe that, but they have no evidence. There's been no enrichment of these bombs."
Yeah Ron. The IAEA is some NEOCON corrupted organization. And Iran has all those centrifuges for fun I guess. Good thing you straightened us out on that.
That is the kind of stuff that makes Paul look crazy.
It was kind of great watching him attack Bachmann for five straight minutes.
Actually, the IAEA has been bowing to US pressure to go beyond its mandate for a long time.
The IAEA is supposed to inspect whether a nation is in compliance with the NPT. That's it.
If a nation is in compliance with the NPT, the IAEA should say that. And nothing else.
Back when the issue of the day was whether Iran should turn over its nuclear fuel for processing by other countries, the IAEA clearly overstepped its bounds at the behest of the US and her allies. Because Iran is under absolutely no obligation, under the NPT, to turn over its fuel to anybody, and on the contrary has the absolute right to process its own fuel. But the IAEA went ahead and issued a report critical of Iran, saying words to the effect of "We would be more sure of Iran's intentions" if they would turn over their fuel.
Bitch, it's not up to you whether or not Iran turns over their fuel.
After reading that report, I now parse IAEA reports very carefully, because they have proven that if they can get away with writing "EPA Fracking" style reports, they will.
That is black helicopter shit. I wish the US could control the IAEA. You and Paul can put on your tinfoil hats and believe that shit. And have fun. But in the mean time most people are going to think he is a bit nuts and he will have no chance of getting elected.
If he doesn't mind the Iranians getting the bomb, fine say so and explain why that is no big deal. But spare us the conspiracy theory bullshit.
Yeah, because nobody conspired to make up the Iraq WMD claims.
Duh, Scruffy. Saddam destroyed them all before we invaded to make us look bad afterwards.*
*I have actually read that in the comments on some conservative websites, but Ron Paul is the black helicopter nut-job.
Excellent point
Gojira, I saw that a couple of years ago, too, but the commenter was very specific that Saddam did it to make GWB look bad, not us in general.
As near as I can figure, the conspiracy around the Iraqi WMD claims was mostly within Saddam's government, which went to a great deal of trouble to run a successful maskirovska implying that they did, indeed have a bunch of WMDs. To stave off, one suspects, an Iranian or American invasion.
How is it a conspiracy theory?
The only international obligations Iran is subject to regarding her nuclear programme that have any legal force are those that arise under the NPT.
Security Council resolutions that deny Iran her NPT rights have no legal basis. They'd be a joke even if the Security Council powers voting on those resolutions weren't all NPT signatories (but they are).
The IAEA is in the wrong right off the bat by gaining access to Iranian facilities under color of the NPT and then using that access to report on Iranian "noncompliance" with the illegal demands of the Security Council. And they do that in every report.
If there was a UN body writing "scary" reports once a quarter about how the US refuses to disarm its populace, you'd be the FIRST one bitching about how they had no legal power to issue such a pronouncement. And you'd be right to do so.
It's funny to me that it's quite easy for you to see the political manipulation that goes into the crafting of the studies and statements of every other international body out there - but find it impossible to believe that could happen in this case.
Do you honestly think the Iranians are not building nukes? And you honestly believe that there is a plot within the US and its allies to make it look like they are when in fact they are not? That seems to be what you are saying. And yes that is a conspiracy theory.
The Iranians are building nukes. They may or may not decide to use them. I don't know. But stop it with the Iranians are a peaceful government shit.
Uh, Fluffy never said the Iranian government is peaceful on this thread. He did allude to theoretical peaceful muslims, but you're misrepresenting...again.
Why are the Iranians building nukes? Because they'd rather we take a North Korea policy to them than an Iraq one. Ron Paul's been saying this every day since Iranian nukes came up.
They are building Nukes so they can do whatever they want to their own people with no fear of consequences. They are also building them so they can then terrorize whomever they want whenever they want. Once they have nukes, they can pretty much do whatever they want short of nuking someone. And what are we going to do about it? Risk a nuclear war? Think not.
Right, because the USSR did whatever the fuck it wanted and we stood by and took it.
The best way to avoid that problem is to let non-nuclear dictators do what they want to their own people without consequences.
ie, don't invade Iraq, don't lead with your behind in Libya.
They are in violation of the NPT. To wit:
In a June 2003 report (PDF), IAEA inspectors concluded that Iran had failed to meet obligations under its Safeguards Agreement signed in 1974. Failures included withholding construction and design details of new facilities, and not reporting processed and imported uranium. Some undeclared shipments dated to 1991, the IAEA said.
Under the terms of the NPT, signatories have the "inalienable right" to produce fuel for civilian energy production, either by enriching uranium or separating plutonium. But the United States and other Western governments accuse Iran of failing to abide by NPT safeguards, and of pursuing technology to produce nuclear weapons. Paul K. Kerr of the Congressional Research Service wrote in a August 2009 report (PDF) that the principal proliferation concern is "Tehran's construction of a gas-centrifuge-based uranium-enrichment facility " at Natanz. Experts say enrichment of uranium hexafluoride gas is of particular concern, because producing weapons-grade fuel (HEU) is considered the most difficult aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle. Kerr also counts Iran's construction of a heavy-water reactor at Arak--which contains plutonium in its spent fuel--as another proliferation concern.
http://www.cfr.org/iran/irans-.....ram/p16811
Countries produce fuel all of the time. But they do so in plants that the plans are available for international inspection and are open about how they do it. Iran doesn't do that and are in violation of the NPT.
India also violated the NPT? Other than our paranoia around Iran, why are we not talking about the unacceptability of India's weapons development?
India violated the hell out of it. But India doesn't go around talking about how the US is a Satanic Power that God will will some day destroy.
I don't lose any sleep over India having nukes. But if a bunch of crazies took over India, I would. What reason is there to believe that the Iranian leaders are lying when they say their goal is to destroy Israel and the United States?
Oh. So the fact that Iran calls us names and India doesn't makes all the difference.
Iran -> violates NPT -> big meanie face -> OH NOES!!!
India -> violates NPT -> big happy face -> YAY!!!
Yes it does. The fact that Iran is lead by a bunch of nuts who routinely murder and torture their own people, the President was one of the 1979 hostage takers, and the fact that Iran has made no bones about how it considers the US to be the focus of evil in the world makes me not want them to have nukes. Yes.
John, you do realize that if they were to actually use their paltry number of nukes on us at any time now or in the future, they'd be absolutely obliterated, with the help of at least half of the existing nuclear powers, right?
...help we wouldn't need, because our arsenal can end humanity several times over, even after all the reductions.
Who besides fox news really thinks the mullahs are crazy? They're backwards and power hungry, but wild eyed and crazy?
Its that paranoia I was talking about.
It doesn't take Fox News viewing for people to think they're all wild-eyed, vicious, rash and unthinking. Lots of perfectly reasonable people come to that conclusion. It's fear of the Other. It runs pretty deep.
I think they're very rational. Assholes, but rational.
Oh, I agree. Rational assholes, but not impulsive, crazy loons. If they were impulsive, crazy loons (or psychos, if you prefer, John), they'd have gotten themselves and probably their entire country wiped the fuck off the earth a long time ago.
So then, you have to ask yourself, is ramping up a discussion of preemptive strike the tactic our politicians should be taking in light of our current economic depression or taking the first step back from brinkmanship a wiser course? Our peace president just bombed the hell out of a nation alot like Iran as soon as the natives got restless. You think this might have put the clerics on the defensive, especially when the next president could be training those bombs on them. Holy crap if I were an opressive regime like Iran, I'd be in a fucking hurry to test a nuke just to make sure America thought twice before bringing about an insurrection in my country.
Yes, rational, very rational.
Bingo.
There is a difference between caring whether Iran has the bomb, and being willing to do foolish things which are not in our self-interest to delay this for a few years.
I also love your "most people are..." BS. You got data to back that up?
Why is Iran having the bomb any worse than Pakistan?
Or Russia? China?
I reminded of a story about a boy and a wolf.
He has never stated they don't want to pursue weaponization. What he is pointing out, is that they have not been successful nor are they close to any success.
In fact, he acknowledges their desire for defense BUT citing former Israeli defense minister that they want it for leverage, that it would be utterly moronic and self defeating if they ever actually used it--especially in the way Bachmann describes--the part you omitted:
"Iran will take a nuclear weapon. They will use it to wipe our ally Israel of the face of the map and they've stated they will use it against the United States of America. Look no further than the Iranian Constitution which states unequivocally their mission is to extend jihad across the world and eventually to setup a world-wide Caliphate. We would be fools and naves to ignore their purpose and their plan."
"And the problem would be the greatest under-reaction in world history if we have an avoid madman who uses that nuclear weapon to wipe nations of the face of the earth and we have an IAEA report that just recently came out that said literally Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that weapon. Nothing can be more dangerous that the comments we just heard (responding to Paul)"
It's totally ironic in light of that calling Ron Paul's talk especially when he cites the buildup to Iraq (and ALL the other incidents that have turned out to be false flags or outright lies)
Plus, we don't know what RP knows. He serves on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs so may have access to classified intel which he can't discuss. He can state a policy decision which may be informed by that info, but he can't directly reference it.
If he becomes President, I suspect that there will be a lot of declassifying and true transparency.
And Iran has all those centrifuges for fun I guess.
Please point to where in the latest IAEA report says that Iran is enriching nuclear material to weapons grade? I read the public report and it makes no such claim. They have the legal right to enrich nuclear material for civilian use and that is what the IAEA report says. The highest level of enrichment has been 20% and that was for a reactor that the US gave to Iran
Re: John,
No, he called her a liar, as the report does not mention anything she claims it mentioned at all.
Now you're using some of that fancy word play that Nick and Welch used to smear Paul with this newsletter thing. Paul never said anything of the kind - he simply makes Bachmann look like a liar. Which she is, by the way.
He said that the IAEA report was corrupt and was written to mislead her, which is nothing but black helicopter crap.
And SHE said that the report indicated they were "months" from a bomb, and that Ahmadinejad had "vowed to use nukes on America"
She is the much bigger liar
Were I Ron Paul, I'd read the relevant parts of George Washington's farewell address wrapped in an American flag. And then have my supporters hum the Star Spangled Banner as I strode off the stage.
He needs to reenact the end of the trial from Animal House. That kind of storming off would vastly increase his polling numbers.
That would. If I were one of the Republican bottom feeders, I would do that to Paul and storm off the stage.
If he did that at a *debate* it would be undeniably epic, though it might hurt his image. Anywhere else, perfect.
Of course movement conservatives hate Paul for the one thing he's right about.
Of course liberal hate him too because they don't give a shit about the things that they might agree with him over.
If romney becomes president I do intend to get my popcorn and sit back and watch liberals rediscover that they care about civil liberties again.
It will be entertaining at least.
It will be. Romney won't be any better on civil liberties than Obama. But he would at least have to explain himself, something Obama doesn't have to do.
Republicans: the federal government can't do anything right, except when they do it in other countries.
Alternatively, the government is going to fuck up whatever it touches, so do things overseas instead of here.
I'm in favor of this policy of displaced fuckupery, so long as those damn, dirty foreigners don't hold it against us.
There can be no confusions about Dr. Paul's own comments about the U.S. After 9/11, he said to students in Iowa, there was "glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq."
That is just horseshit. That is Micheal Moore level slander. No one was happy after 9-11. Angry, sure. But not happy. To say otherwise and to say that Bush was happy that 3000 Americans died makes Paul a crank.
To hell with the newsletters, the guy cannot talk about anything relating to foreign policy without sounding like a bitter nut.
The problem here John is that we all remember that you and I had a very detailed conversation about this very subject, where you yourself declared that being satisfied, energized, and filled with new confidence and determination when a policy view you advocated was advanced by events was so natural an emotional reaction as to be inevitable.
So THAT DAY your argument was that Paul's observation was so commonplace as to be pointless, but TODAY your argument is that he an insane Michael Moore style slanderer.
I remember that coversation. And that is not what I said. I said Bush and company probably wet their pants that day. But they were not happy. If you can find a place where I said Bush was happy about 9-11 produce it. And I will either take it back or modify what I said above.
Is it not possible to be sad and angry about 9/11, and then gleeful that one has an excuse to invade Iraq?
I don't think the claim is that Bush was happy that 3000 Americans died. It's that he was happy he could turn that as an excuse into invading Iraq. Life handed him an epic lemon, and so...
I think that is a ridiculous slander. No one was gleeful about anything about 9-11.
If cops accidentily killed a few dozen people during a no knock raid and as a result of that Libertarians were able to finally get political support to do something about it, would it be fair to say the Libertarians were "gleeful" about those deaths? Hell no. To say so would be a slander.
Agreed. And I don't see where it's claimed that the Bush administration was gleeful about those deaths, either. I think you're inferring that, invalidly.
Re: John,
You totally misconstrue Paul's comment, John. He didn't say that the administration was glad that 9/11 happened. What he said is that they were glad they had a good excuse to invade Iraq, which they DID.
Paul was talking about the Iraq war to those students, not about 9-11 per se.
"glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq.
That is what he said. It speaks for itself. If Paul thinks this or any President is gleeful over the worst terrorist attack in American history, he is a nasty old kook and has no place on the national stage.
He is right about a lot things. But then he says stupid shit like that and disqualifies himself.
If any official in the administration who was in a position to advise on national security policy said to himself, at any time after 9/11, "Now they'll have to listen to me when I tell them Iraq is a threat and we need to invade them and undertake regime change!" Paul's statement is, strictly speaking, true.
That's glee, dude. Being pumped up that people won't be able to object to your policy prescriptions is glee. You may not laugh like the fucking Joker while you do it, but it's glee.
For Paul's statement to be a slander, NOT ONE of the PNAC guys had to feel like events had put their views on top. Not one.
Like you said the other day, when you were being more reasonable about this, it's perfectly natural for a human being to react that way.
I wouldn't be gleeful about the deaths.
But if the next day a million people were in the streets baying for vengeance, THAT DAY I'd be gleeful, sure.
So that would be "glee" that would be occurring "after" a bad event. Absolutely.
If I say "I'm happy my wife didn't die in that car wreck", am I happy that my wife got in a car wreck?
One can have different emotional responses to different aspects of the same event. So the Bush administration could be devastated by 9/11, and then, once that had been at least partly processed, giddy at the prospect of invading Iraq.
Subtle, I know.
If my wife dies in a car wreck, I am not gleeful over getting the million dollar insurance check.
It is not subtlety it is kooky bullshit and why no one takes Libertarians seriously.
Yeah, this is why no one takes libertarians seriously.
What if a distant relative died, and left you a million dollars? Grim acceptance on your part?
Let me spell it out. You're arguing that
A: A is happy about Y.
B: X caused Y.
C: A is happy about X.
C doesn't follow, and AFAIK no one is claiming the conclusion. Paul believes A. You believe not-A, and maybe you're right (I don't think so), but in any case you don't get to argue from not-C to not-A.
That whooshing I just heard is Trespassers excellent argument flying over John's head.
i gotta give props to trespasser as well
very well stated
Fuck John, you are a damn wordsmith. It's not that they were "happy", just that they "wet their pants". Why would someone wet their pants (in the context of the euphemism)? The two most common reasons would be a profound sense of fear that causes one to release their bladder and profound happiness (glee) that you are getting exactly what you wanted.
ie: That ghost tapped me on the shoulder and I wet my pants. OR Daddy said he was getting me a pony. I was so happy I nearly peed my pants.
stupid comment, agreed.
its pure speculation, but the WMD discussion always came out like it was the last thing they discussed though, given how many other nations have equally dangerous weapons that we haven't invaded. The talking points started with we need to remove Saddam and then when asked why, they would talk about the WMD's.
Go back and read the speeches. It was about the UN. Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out. That is when they went to the UN. They didn't go to the UN and ask to go to war until the fall of 2002, a full year after 9-11. And they only did so after Saddam kicked the inspectors out. And when they did, the case they made was that if the UN didn't do something or the entire credibility of the UN nonproliferation regime was done.
They never mentioned 9-11 when making the case. Either Paul is profoundly ignorant or profoundly dishonest or both.
John, they restarted the look for WMD's in the run-up to the war. When they didn't find any and got kicked out, then the administration used that as the excuse for war.
Its not as if the UN had been doing WMD searches consistantly since the gulf war.
In 2001, before 9/11, no one was looking for anything in Iraq.
Bush administration insider memoirs show that various administration figures were talking about invading Iraq and making the initial plans before the end of that September.
I'm not going to go back and "read the speeches" because every last word that was said after the buildup started in Kuwait was a pantomime. As soon as we had the forces in place, we were going in. Certainly we weren't going to wait long enough for the weather timetable to turn against us.
Our schedule for invasion had absolutely nothing to do with diplomatic events in the last 2-5 months before the invasion, when those speeches were taking place. The decision was already made.
Hell, the Downing Street memo alone proves that.
From W himself, no.
But how bout the "other newsletter", you know the PNAC one where some group of well known neocons was basically hoping out loud for a Peal Harbor type event to get everybody excited about some middle east nation building? And they got their way. Probably was some glee in there somewhere. And these are the same people that accuse Paul saying we "deserved" it, so fuck them.
So someone who may have a agreed with Bush somewhere may have been happy. And that makes Paul's slander okay.
It makes it a factually correct statement. Pretty explanatory too for why we invaded the wrong country.
No it doesn't. It says the Bush Administration was happy. And that is a fucking horrible slander. He is saying they were happy over the deaths of 3000 Americans. Fuck him.
Fuck them.
Re: John,
That is a conclusion anybody would reach considering all the lying and shoehorning that happened right after 9/11
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/....._0805.html
Oh bullshit. If your position is that your opponents are evil murderers who enjoy the death of Americans, then you deserve to be considered a nut.
Re: John,
Read your comment again, because it makes no sense within the context of your other comments - just an FYI.
Besides this, it is clear Ron Paul was not saying the administration was glad 9-11 happened. He said that the admistration was glad to have an excuse to invade Iraq, which it DID.
But they didnt' invade Iraq over 9-11. They invaded Iraq over Saddam kicking out the weapons inspectors. If what Paul were saying were true, the Adminstration would have gone to the UN about Iraq in 2001 not 2002 and they would have done so for reasons other than Saddam's kicking out the inspectors. He is totally misrepresenting history and is a lying sack of shit on this issue.
I wouldn't say they invaded Iraq over 9/11. I'm saying they're gulf warians that wanted to invade Iraq since '92 so they could bring about their nation building scheme, but they exploited the hell out of 9/11 sentiment to make it happen.
Ron Paul was never anything but a rightwing libertoid wet dream. You libertoid assholes are so fucking stupid that you can't see how supporting such a loony old fuck doesn't advance your silly cause;it sets it back. Fucking morons.
What are these "principles" and "rights" that you people keep blathering on about. Common people can't be trusted to make the right decisions for themselves; the right people have to be in charge...
His Foreign policy is ONLY anti-american if one considers the role of world-police necessary to keep the American-way going.
He might sound like a "bitter nut" to you, but he is one who happens to be absolutely right, especially since he constantly warns about the consequences in detail, with foresight rather than merely looking back in hindsight (which the other neocons don't even do)
I might as well repost this from Chapman's "Arab Spring" Libya and Egypt thread:
"Some of our moderate Arab allies will be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists.
... China ironically assisted by American aid, much more openly, will sell the militant Muslims the weapons they want and will align herself with the Arab nations"
-- Ron Paul, April 24, 2002, U.S. House
( youtube.com/watch?v=pvlUx5ECD2w )
"Gaddafi may well be every bit the "bad guy" we are told he is, but who are the rebels we are assisting? Do we have any clue? Will they bring freedom and prosperity to Libya if they are victorious? We might like to hope so, but the fact is, we don't know. Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, explained in a recent article that there is plausible reason to believe the rebels are current or former Islamist mujahedin, eager to engage in jihad.
Indeed, Gaddafi has fought against Libyan Islamists for years and is seen by them as a bitter enemy. Astoundingly, it may well be that we are assisting al Qaeda in this new war!"
-- Ron Paul March 28, 2011
Oh hey, lookie here!
Earlier this week, I went to the Benghazi courthouse and confirmed the rumors: an al Qaeda flag was clearly visible; its Arabic script declaring that "there is no God but Allah" and a full moon underneath. When I tried to take pictures, a Salafi-looking guard, wearing a green camouflage outfit, rushed towards me and demanded to know what I was doing. My response was straightforward: I was taking a picture of the flag. He gave me an intimidating look and hissed, "Whomever speaks ill of this flag, we will cut off his tongue. I recommend that you don't publish these. You will bring trouble to yourself."
last link broken:
http://www.vice.com/read/al-qa.....g-in-libya
(damn html) the other Ron Paul March 28, 2011 link above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-etb_PNBeE
But Kadafi was an asshole who oppressed the hell out of his people. You know who else fought against Islamic extremists? The Shah. Yet, all I ever hear around here is how all of our problems with Iran go back to putting the Shah in.
So should we support dictators or should we not?
I'm pretty sure the concensus here is that we should mind our own fucking business for the most part.
The two options are to prop up dictators or to take them down? I feel like there's a third option, I just can't put my finger on it...
Re: John,
Because the Iranians saw the deposing of Mossadegh for what it was, J. Kadaffi did not come to power by way of a CIA-sponsored coup.
I just had a vision of RP doing an Inconvenient-Truth-type speaking tour following a failed presidential bid.
And I love the idea.
REASON WHY DO YOU HATE THE GOOD DOCTOR RON PAUL SO MUCH PUBLISHING THESE SMEARS!?!?!?!?!?!
Oh...
So when was the last time Lowry derided any Republican for calling Obama a communist or socialist? Because you can't get more anti-American than by calling the commander in chief a sell-out to American values...
CNN Poll Shows Ron Paul As Being The Most Popular Republican Amongst Non-Whites
Eat shit, Nick!
OK. Again with "national defense" and the assumption by the Ron Paul lovers that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were not part of the American "national defense". And again, Sullum raises the ghosts of GW and TJ. Wait, TJ? He started that fucking war with the Berbers in Africa for fuck's sake!
National defense is in the eye of the beholder. Simply, what national defense is, is arguable. Even for the sainted TJ. And thus, political. He really needs to stop trying to divine why Al Qaeda attacked us. Americans simply won't sop it up as easily as Jake.
I agree.
Fair enough.
What policy of RP would hurt a TJ style national defense?
Only if you define words according to the Crazy Person Dictionary that no doubt resides in your head.
Listen Blue Moon Odom, All I'm saying is that if RP really believes that Iran hates us because we intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan, he's welcome to that opinion. But then the word "crazy" in the Crazy Person Dictionalry would have to have a picture of him nest to it. The Barbary pirates were attacking our shipping, and we went real far away form our shores to stop them. National defense is defending national interests. And sometimes those interests are economic, and sometimes they are geopolitical. Rail against it all you want, but even TJ knew that. So, the issues are open to reasonable argument.
I will repeat myself for those who have not heard it. I will vote for RP because I believe that he stands for leaving me and others the fuck alone in the society we created according to a constitution. I am completely Hobbesian when it comes to international affairs. We are in a state of nature with other countries. Once we decided to go into Iraq and Afghanistan, win was the only option. Or, as in nature, the hyenas will fuck you up.
What about personal self defence?
Is a "preemptive strike" against rac because I suspect he might have a bigger gun than I do acceptable?
How about if I firebomb his whole block?
I thought bin Laden told us why they attacked? You mean after 10 years most Americans are still wandering around asking "How could they do that to us. What was their motive?"
Do you honestly think the Iranians are not building nukes? And you honestly believe that there is a plot within the US and its allies to make it look like they are when in fact they are not? That seems to be what you are saying. And yes that is a conspiracy theory.
Here is my take:
I think that it is likely that Iran wants to have a nuclear weapon someday.
But the approach they appear to be taking to achieve this goal is to build a technically compliant civilian program that is substantial enough that when they DO decide to build a bomb, they can do so either between inspections or so quickly the IAEA can't notice.
And this is probably a really good strategy. The technologies are all dual-use. If Japan decided this afternoon that they wanted a nuke, they'd have one built before anyone noticed.
In a certain sense, the NPT is a kind of misbegotten treaty, because it can't really prevent proliferation even under its own terms. If the will is there to get a weapon, you can just comply with the NPT until the last leg of your development project.
So Iran probably intends to either develop a civilian program and then switch down the line, OR they are just reasoning that 18 months after they have a mature civilian program, Israel will assume they've got a functioning bomb hidden somewhere anyway - so they get the deterrent factor without even having to produce the weapon.
BUT the problem is that they've been compliant so far. The violations they've been accused of either apply to amendments to the treaty they never signed, and/or disputes with the IAEA about the required timetable for the release of different types of information. I think Iran has actually made a pretty sincere attempt to be compliant, precisely because that's their strategy here.
I also think that we have (probably rightly) decided that the NPT kind of sucks, that Iran can hide behind it, and that it doesn't serve our interests to let Iran have a civilian program, even though we signed a treaty saying they can have one. So we've decided to place as many obstacles as we can in the way of Iran's compliant activities, even though doing so makes us NPT violators ourselves. The entire rigamarole over the fuel shows that. We used every diplomatic means available to try to stop the Iranians from buying pre-processed fuel, even though we are obligated under the NPT to not do that and indeed to do the exact opposite, and when Iran reacted by declaring they would process their own fuel, we began diplomatic and covert operations to try to stop them - another treaty violation.
So, yeah, I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to claim that the US has tried to erase the distinction between an Iranian civilian (and compliant) nuclear program and an Iranian attempt to build a nuclear bomb. To us they're the same thing, so we feel entitled to erase the distinction. And it serves our interest, today, to ignore our treaty obligations.
I say Mitt Romney's foreign policy is much more anti-American than Ron Paul's. I was shocked to hear him say in the debate (and even more shocked that no one called him on it) that he had to ask permission from the Prime Minister of Israel before making any foreign policy decisions or statements. Doesn't that classify him as treasonous and an enemy combatant?
Ron Paul is not Israel's whore. They can't buy him off like all of the other candidates. Since they take AIPAC money, they are whores for Israel, and by taking the money the are paid political foreign operatives, which makes their activities and beliefs un-American, not Ron Paul. Reason Magazine somehow does not understand the Pimp - Whore relationship between PAC and Politicians.
http://reason.com/assets/mc/mr.....nWoman.png
Next on The Situation Room ...
NEWSLETTER CONTROVERSEY
(for reals... Just
saw on TV in a bar.)
I agree with Rich Lowry.
For those of you not familiar with it, Murray Rothbard's belief, as stated in For A New Liberty and elsewhere, was that the USSR's ostensible belligerence was entirely a rxn to provocation by the USA and its allies. Of all the reasons that could've been given for fixing foreign affairs, this was the most ridiculous. I'm not sure he even believed it himself, rather than just using it as an attraction to naive peaceniks. Only by being very selective about what he looked at and what he ignored could such an idea seem reasonable. Leonard Liggio could sustain him on what Murray looked at, but not what he ignored.
Ron Paul I believe was convinced of that wacky idea and transposed it to the Arabs and Islamic extremists. So even though I can agree with Dr. Paul on all of his current foreign policy prescriptions (and could've said much the same of Murray's), if he were in the White House I'd be afraid of what else his ideas might extrapolate to. Therefore my best hope is that he's an influence on whomever does win the election, but that he not become POTUS himself.
He's never said or implied that he wouldn't retaliate against an enemy who attacked us. But we have no business going around being "pre-emptive".
if obma said such things he would be deminized
Deminized? Is that when you turn someone into Demi Moore?
The True Libertarian foreign policy is based on: The US should never attack unless attacked first.
However, every time the US is attacked (say 911 for instance), True Libertarians say that that attack is blowback for previous US actions, therefore we can't respond to this current attack.
Oh, and when True Libertarians use the word 'pre-emptive' what they really mean is 'ever using military force." As in IdiotNate: We have no business in going around ever using military force.
True Libertarian foreign policy employs the same idiotic logic the anti-gun Left does. All people are basically good. It's better to talk through your problems. You should only defend yourself after you've been massively attacked. And even then, really, don't your attackers have some good points on their side?
"The True Libertarian foreign policy is based on: The US should never attack unless attacked first."
Maybe (although "True Libertarian" sounds suspiciously like "True Scotsman"), but it also extends to the U.S. should not engage in actively supporting oppressive regimes and we should not be stationing troops all over the world.
"However, every time the US is attacked (say 911 for instance), True Libertarians say that that attack is blowback for previous US actions, therefore we can't respond to this current attack."
Really? Every time we're attacked? Seems like a rather absurd characterization. I haven't seen any libertarians complaining about president Obama's authorization of the killing of the Somali pirates who were holding Americans hostage, nor were they stating that the attacks were motivated by America's policies. Realistically, we haven't stayed out of the affairs of other nations since 1945, so it's hard to have an attack which might at least in part have been motivated by blowback for U.S. actions.
The bottom line is that 9/11 was quite clearly brought about at least partly by choices made in America's foreign policy. One only has to look at Bin Laden's stated reasons for attacking America and his organization's recruiting materials to see this. It's insane to argue that we should ignore the motives of our attackers in formulating our responses to them, especially if we want to deter further attacks. Only an idiot would think that we can behave however we wish and there will never be any consequences. When we choose to use force abroad or support despotic dictators, we shouldn't be surprised that there may be negative consequences in the long run. Therefore, we should be extremely careful before engaging in those activities. I'm amazed that you miss this point.
"Oh, and when True Libertarians use the word 'pre-emptive' what they really mean is 'ever using military force.""
Really? I thought pre-emptive had a pretty clear meaning. I doubt seriously you'd find anyone here that would argue against military force if the Canadians were massing troops on our border and mulling a declaration of war in parliament. We also generally wouldn't have an issue with using a smart bomb to blow up a terrorist training camp where attacks against Americans are being planned. But we do have an issue with deploying troops against people because they "might" be developing nuclear weapons (which they'd have no way to utilize against us as they have no ICBMs). We also have issue with attacking a sovereign nation because the leader might kill a bunch of people, when that leader had only a few months prior been all buddy buddy with us. You are willfully ignoring the distinction.
"True Libertarian foreign policy employs the same idiotic logic the anti-gun Left does. All people are basically good. It's better to talk through your problems. You should only defend yourself after you've been massively attacked. And even then, really, don't your attackers have some good points on their side?"
So instead we should assume that all of the nations and groups that are not our allies and might even be actively hostile are full of evil people who deserve to die? Forgive me if I'd prefer to understand my enemy and attempt to reach an accomodation with him, only resorting to violence as a last resort, rather than attacking with a flimsy pretext and often with unintended consequences. It's a disgrace that we send American troops to fight and die in wars (not to mention spending massive amounts of money) with no clear objective that quite clearly do not make us safer, just because we don't seem to know how to engage in diplomacy anymore except at the point of a gun. Your assertion that talking through problems is idiotic as opposed to armed conflict where people die pretty much illustrates the absurdity of your arguments.
Paul claims to support limited military intervention if the U.S. is directly attacked, but he contradicts that with shit like:
- Condemning the raid that killed Osama bin Laden (isn't this a shining example of the kind of limited special forces strategy that Paul claims to support?)
- Opposing all Predator drone strikes
- Claiming that the Bush Administration was filled with "glee" after September 11th (which is really just another shout out to his Truther buddies)
- Accusing Bachmann of wanting to "declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims" (remember, when free nations wage war against totalitarians, it's "genocide!")
- Violating non-interventionist principles by siding with Hamas against Israel (including repeatedly making the same absurd claim about Palestinians living in "concentration camps")
- Appearing on Iran's propaganda television network to bash the U.S. and Israel
I basically agree with the famous John Quincy Adams speech, but Ron Paul is no Jeffersonian, he's a Rothbardian. Rothbard's apologeticism (and sometimes even admiration) for Communist regimes and the Confederacy is well documented.
What do you call a Rothbardian foreign policy, if not anti-American? People who always look for an excuse to side with dictators and terrorists against secular democracies, in every single instance, certainly aren't mere "non-interventionists" (by the way, the Founders weren't exactly strict non-interventionists either, and they understood the principle that dictatorships do not have rights).
So sad that we have to look at news in other countries to find out what is going on in our own. No wonder they are trying so hard to censor the Internet...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....ds-newsxml
Just have to love the simple minds on here that think that one CNN interview can undo a 30 years of consistence and honesty in terms of upholding the US Constitution, an unfailing ability for him to predict our future for our erroneous and ill thoughout actions, but because Americans are so corrupt philosophical, they think that if Ron Paul doesn't come with USED CAR salesmen polish and gleam, or that he won't cower to the media spin and extortion's that he is somehow done.. Just completely laughable you all are on here. Ron Paul not only has a Chance he is going to be our next president. The others? Global NWO elitists who we see right through, just like we see right through the failed thinking on this board. Your minds have been corrupted by your college brainwashing, face that fact and how sad you all are.