Re: Ron Paul
Written by YellowJacket on May 17th, 2007Much has been said about Ron Paul’s influence and positions within the Republican debate and race in general. I am in agreement with Alex; I admire Paul greatly for his domestic views on following the Constitution and his fight against the growth in the federal government, but think that he is greatly misguided on foreign affairs. For the GOP to embrace rank isolationism would be a poison pill and would mean the downfall of American power should it be implemented in an administration. Like it or not, the United States is a principle hegemony in the world system, and has a right and responsibility to maintain the balance of power in favor of the security of the United States and the stability of the worldwide system. We can argue about the specifics of that, such as whether we should get involved in humanitarian crises, or only situations that directly affect United States security, et cetera, but I think that Ron Paul really does not get my previous statement.
Ron Paul’s political isolationism is just as dangerous as Duncan Hunter’s economic isolationism.
Nathanael Blake makes a good concluding point over at the Right Angle Blog of Human Events:
Finally, and more substantially, Ron Paul is an ideologue who refuses to deal with the realities of the world as it is. His extreme non-interventionism didn’t even work at the beginning of the American Republic, and is impossible now. He is lacking in prudence, the hallmark of the conservative statesman.
17
PM
And those who disagree with him are ideologues that refuse to deal with the fact that our policies indeed created the world as it is.
This is a circular, chicken or the egg argument that can go forever. But we will never succeed in world until we realize what factors created the current condition of the world.
Islam is the enemy of The West.
The West has interfered in the affairs of the Islamic world, and in fact have tried to mold it into the West’s Image, since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
There is no contradiction to say that the actions of the West since the fall of Ottomans has led to the current situation.
To quote Dan Flynn again whose article sums the situation up nicely:
17
PM
Mr. Perry, I respectfully disagree.
Nation building and entangling alliances are the real danger to the United States. The constant state of fear ushered in by the arrival of Neoconservative Republicanism is wearing our nation down. Modern conservativism has to be conservative to both survive and offer an alternate viewpoint to the electorate.
Paul will get us back on track by tending to our own domestic problems and peacfully trading with the world. The middle east is not our problem, and politicians that freely volunteer us for conflict there need to have their motives exposed.
“Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.” This quote is both applicable to international politics, and wholly conservative.
17
PM
Allow me to quote Edmund Burke “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for a few good men to do nothing”
17
PM
Gary, thank you for the quote.
Good men are doing something. Rep. Paul is speaking out alone against the engangling alliances which are broadening our entanglement in the Middle East. He’s doing this during a time of hightened paranoia and fear. His actions take courage and are by nature more difficult than towing the party line. Paul is a good man.
Again, thank you for the quote.
“Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.” -George Washington
17
PM
“the downfall of American power”
I didn’t realized we were concerned about American Power. America should be more interested in being democratic, and American, not concerned with how much “power” we have. We are so concerned about staying on top that we’ve lost sight of what this country was founded on, which is also a poison that could lead to much worse things than a mere loss of the most powerful country title.
17
PM
Lets look at the record of American inaction in the last century:
Post World War I - Europe falls apart and fascism rises.
Hungarian Revolution - Crushed because the US failed to even threaten the Soviets.
Cuban Communist takeove - Americans failed to help prop up th existing regime and we get Castro.
Vietnam - US fails to keep its promise at the Paris Peace Accords and North Vietnam overuns the South in 1975.
Late 1970s - US weakness leads to Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and spread of communism in third world.
Afghanistan after the Soviet withdraw - Civil War and the Taleban comes to power.
Iraq War I - We did not finish the job.
Somalia -US cuts and runs. Becomes a haven for terrorists and emboldens Al Qaeda.
Rwanda - 900k dead in a few months when the US failed to act.
We are the world’s police like it or not. When we go away, all hell breaks loose. If we accept isolationism again or even turn our back slightly, there will be far more death in the future.
17
PM
Ryan is 100% correct…like Tancredo said in the debate, we are the last best hope for Western civilization.
17
PM
They hate us like the Egyptians hated the successful Israelites before the Exodus. In that sense, Bush is 110% correct, they hate us because we are free.
18
PM
If we are to intervene in Muslim countries, it should be with overwhelming force with the specific stated intent to defend American interests and Western Civilization. If we are going to be noninterventionist and pursue peaceful relations and international stability (as I think Paul would suggest) we should go out of war not to create enemies or reasons for terrorists to attack us.
I think Bush is the worst of all worlds. We are occupying a foreign nation and inadvertantly killing innocent people, infuriating Muslims around the world. At the same time it is obstensibly in defense of universal, Wilsonian, left wing tripe about abstract human rights, democracy, and other slogans. Bush also ignored the advice of many generals and sent too few troops, and those that were sent were hampered by absurd rules of engagement that kept them from defending themselves.
To paraphrase what was said about Germany’s reaction to the Treaty of Versailles, we are being harsh enough to inspire hatred and soft enough to inspire contempt.
We should abondon the failed left wing ideology of neoconservatism, tell Kristol and his NYC phony right wingers to jump in a lake, and return to traditional American noninterventionism, using overwhelming force when we are attacked or our interests are threatened.
18
PM
He didn’t send too few troops, he’s sent the ENTIRE military (why do you think we have National Guard troops over there?) - or what was left of it after Bill Clinton cut our force strength by more than 50% during his tenure.
16
PM
The idea that we as the US brought the 9/11 terrorist attacks on is not an idea I hear from conservatives
^^^^^^^^^^^
And its not one you heard from Paul….unless you were too busy sucking Rudy Rockefeller’s dick to notice.
Ron said that our interventionist foriegn policy decisions have UNINTENDED consequences. He didn’t say we asked for it…he said that seeing US troops intervening in their affairs gives young muslims INCENTIVE to gravitate to Osama’s ridiculous ideas when they normally wouldn’t.
He’s saying that if we stop intervening so much….Osama will lose a huge recruiting tool.
Ron never said that 9/11 was JUSTIFIED or that it was a reasonable response to our interventionism….much like if I slapped you in the back of the head and you shot me in the face. Your reaction is not justified nor reasonable. But if I hadn’t slapped you in the head, you’d have had a lot less reason to shoot me.
Less intervention isn’t going to completely solve the problem. But it will rob Osama of a powerful tool that allows him to “legitimize” his bigoted hatred in the eyes of young muslims.