When Ron Paul uttered his rationale for the 9/11 attack on the U.S. (“They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.”) it may have woke up some Americans to the possibility that our country has done some very ill-considered things in the name of ‘making the world a better place.’ Some people, however, refuse to wake up! Look, for instance, at Rudy Giuliani’s reaction to Ron Paul’s statement: ” I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th.” And, as unlikely as it seems, that may be the truth! Who, in Giuliani’s circle of friends and supporters, would even consider that saving the world from itself was not the correct thing to do and who among them would ever believe that someone could hate you and attack you for doing the right thing?
As I see it, Ron Paul is at least partially right; one of the basic principles of how the world works is: Every “good” act will be perceived as bad by someone!; but he is wrong to completely ignore the social, political and religious aspects of that hatred. In any event, creating an enemy is not necessarily a bad thing, but if you create enemies you must be prepared to deal with them.
Keep in mind that some things MUST be done in the name of survival and America’s involvement in the Middle-East just may have been one of those things. No one outside the ‘circle of power’ in the White House knows for sure but I’ve always assumed that we (the U.S. Government) had a very sound, strategic, survival-related reason for our active involvement in Middle-Eastern politics and I also assume that one day, when some dead politician’s memoirs are published, we will find out what that reason REALLY was. You can be sure, however, that whatever the reason we went into Iraq, we didn’t go into Iraq with a clear understanding of the consequences (the cost and the number of U.S. casualties).
Now Forget What You Just Read! It’s Not Relevant!
What IS . . . IS!
Today, it doesn’t matter WHY we got involved in the Middle-Eastern mess, all that matters is that WE ARE THERE and we have to take a next step.
Pick Your Poison!
In the very unlikely event that Ron Paul became president in 2009, assuming he sticks to his current ‘script,’ we will probably see a massive troop withdrawal from around the world. It is not likely we will go completely ‘isolationist. i.e., close all overseas military bases and completely abandon close allies, but you can be sure we will be out of the Middle-East and other war zones.
If one of the leading Democrats takes office in 2009 the result will be pretty much the same except that our withdrawal of troops will be limited, at least initially, to Iraq.
If one of the Republican front-runners becomes president we may stay in Iraq until the Iraqi government and military are strong enough to survive without us or, depending on which Republican wins, we may see a similar scenario as we would see under the Democrats.
Personally, I believe that, for our own safety and survival, the radical Islamist movement must be destroyed — IF we can do that without fighting them in Iraq, we must do it; IF it takes another five or ten years to do it, we must do it; IF we can do it diplomatically, without open warfare, we must do it — I’m not a military tactician but I know that however it can be done it MUST be done, simply because we cannot coexist with people who feel that they have an edict from their God to destroy everyone who does not worship as they do and we MUST elect a president that understands that!!
While picking your poison however, don’t forget that the United States has other very serious problems besides the Middle-East. We have a government that is spending OUR money at an alarming rate; an income tax system that is too large, too complex and too inefficient; government regulations that strangle the free-market; existing and proposed legislation that puts the government smack in the middle of our private lives and personal business; and, of course, a still-unimpeded invasion of illegal immigrants who are, according to current plans, going to be allowed to continue draining our economy and destroying our culture.
Which of the current crop of candidates for President is likely to correct some or most of these domestic problems and still focus on the major international threat to our safety?
If the election was tomorrow, I would have to say that Ron Paul had the best chance of meeting that challenge . . . but I’m glad the election isn’t tomorrow . . . that I still have nearly 18 months to pick my own brand of poison.
Links about Ron Paul
Houston Chronicle: Lake Jackson’s Paul stirs GOP presidential race
Free-Market News Network: Could Ron Paul Win in New Hampshire?
From the blogosphere:
Buttle’s World: Ron Paul Experiment
House of Chin: Ron Paul Lovefest
News and commentary by: Whymrhymer can also be found at the My View from the Center and at The American Chronicle Family of Journals
18 users commented in " Pick Your Poison: Ron Paul "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackThis brings up some interesting ideas.
(As a minor point, I have not seen evidence that Ron Paul ignores the “social, political and religious aspects of that hatred,” but I’ll watch for it.)
If the effect of poison is evenly ballanced among choices worldwide and with Ron Paul, things are better at home, then Ron Paul is the choice. Even discounting things at home, I think Ron Paul would be the choice if practical things seem even, because he would tend to choose the right choices.
Given your scenarios (and they might not be too far off), I think it is worth exploring the Ron Paul approach.
Ron Paul said the first thing he would do is talk with leaders around the world and let them know what is happening. So, base withdrawal might take some time. However, other types of intervention would stop immediately. This has the adventage in that the US is less likely to get into a concurrent mess. Also, it might be handy to have friends worldwide.
Ron Paul is big on direct and immediate defense. World opinion is good on this kind of action.
Ron Paul encourages world trade, giving, and communication. He would remove trade barriers (except munitions) and keep the Internet free. Increased trade among small businesses, increased collaboration among folks with similar goals, would tend to erode extremist positons. Those who are not extremists would discourage extremists who are targetting their trading partners. Extremist Islam for this and other reasons will be addressed from within Islam.
Under Ron Paul the US would be defended and extremist Islam would be “allowed” to diminish. I realize that is weaker than what you would hope for, but I think it is best, the best of any poison we are likely to see.
I think its interesting that you reference Ron Paul as following a “script”. It made me think for a microsecond in order to realize what script Ron Paul follows. To anyone who has given this candidate serious consideration they will know the only script he follows is the Constitution. And, last time I checked, they still swear in elected representatives and government officials to defend and uphold this script. It’s really too bad so many people are so estranged from the conversation of freedom as had by those who created the Constitution and that instead we have adopted the conversation that marginalizes and denigrates the true freedom conversation. Seeing the likes of Ron Paul running for President gives me hope that our government will receive the much needed house cleaning it has needed for many decades. Our freedom depends on it!
Ron Paul all the way to the white house!
With 50 states, an active military and corporate occupation globally, the USA will NEVER be an “isolationist”.
Have you listened to what Ron Paul said? The majority of the terrorist don’t just want to kill us bcause their God said so and we have R-rated movies and our women can vote. It is because we have been meddling in their holy lands for 50 years. Step One: stop meddling in holy lands. Step two: secure our borders. These two steps would greatly decrease their want to target the US and their ability to recruit. At least in my opinion.
Who IS Ron Paul? They still need to know!!
NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!
Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews in chronological
order. Worth a look!
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com
Since your obviously CLUELESS, please watch the below video so you can correct your uninformed statements.
You need to do some research on the bills being passed that give bushwacko the power to declare martial law for anything he wants and a bill to make it so a person can be President for more than 2 terms……………you think you have until 2008 to
do something………………….dream on.
“that I still have nearly 18 months to pick my own brand of poison.”
“simply because we cannot coexist with people who feel that they have an edict from their God to destroy everyone who does not worship as they do”
“Personally, I believe that, for our own safety and survival, the radical Islamist movement must be destroyed”
“In the very unlikely event that Ron Paul became president in 2009”
“but he is wrong to completely ignore the social, political and religious aspects of that hatred.”
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GLn0tMdXd_Q
You’re right, Randy. If people just take a few minutes and listen to Ron Paul explain his positions, his common sense approach to foreign policy resonates; http://www.watchronpaul.com has an archive of Ron Paul videos.
According to my figures, there are at least 2 billion Muslims in the world. If only 1 percent are radical, that makes at lest 20 million radicals spread all over the world. One of Paul’s points on this issue is that we must become occupiers if we want to fight radical Islam and in the process we end up killing innocents, which in turn incites many more in the occupied regions to violence against our troops. Whymrhymer, what are you willing to give up in order to eradicate radical Islam. Will you go to basic training and get shipped off to Iraq and endure being shot at and breathing in depleted uranium just so you can get more Iraqis pissed off at us. So far we have killed about 700 thousand Iraqis, we have destroyed their infrastructure and have poisoned their land with depleted uranium that has a half life of 4 billion years. We have stolen their state oil industries and privatized them. Why have we done all of this? Even Bush says that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So why the hell are we there? If you can honestly answer that, Whymrhymer, I might be inclined to accept you wisdom regarding what to do about the problem.
It’s impossible to destroy the Radical Islam Movement and attempting to destroy it will only make it stronger.
I think you must have meant ‘Rudy Giuliani’ in the beginning of your second paragraph.
Radical Islam’s cultural loathing of the U.S. is nothing new, from the writings of Sayyid Qutb in the 50s to Ayatollah Khomeini’s rants. What mobilizes them however isn’t cultural revulsion but a preponderant sense of political injustice and of being threatened. Jahangir Amuzegar writes: “The Islamic Republic, for its part, originally demanded that the United States accept the legitimacy of the 1979 revolution, not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs, and deal with the Iranian regime on the basis of “respect and equality”.”
Bush’s saber-rattling Axis-of-Evil speech inflamed hostilities in Iran and was seen as another example of America’s global arrogance. It resulted in a united front of anti-Americanism. This kind of brutish posturing does nothing but damage relations with the Muslim world.
We need to go hard after those who strike us with violence, while at the same time making every effort to disperse the storm clouds that have been gathering within the Islamic community abroad. Ron Paul doesn’t shrink from the former task (following 9-11 he voted to authorize the use of force with the belief that it would be used to knock out al Qaeda and punish Bin Laden), but he also recognizes the necessity of the latter. His opponents will derisively label it “appeasement”, but unless we begin to pursue a policy of disengagement that respects the regional right of self-determination in the Middle East and elsewhere, our problems will multiply. Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate that truly understands this and isn’t afraid to articulate it.
http://republicanrenaissance.blogspot.com
Ron Paul is brilliant… and geting my vote.
You don’t stop a fire by continuing to add fuel. The fight against Islamists will not be won with guns but with good intelligence and police work. Ron Paul has the right idea about what will work.
I think Ron Paul is spot on right and you really miss the boat.
1) We were attacked on 911 for a reason. I am not saying that what they did was OK or completely rational, but there is a reason we are the focus of their anger and we should at least inspect and acknowledge that.
That is what Ron Paul’s point was. We prop up non democratic, despotic governments like the Saudis or the shaw of iran and when the opprest people of these countries respond in Anger toward us, we act ignorant.
To simply respond with non nonsensical platitudes such as “they hate us for our freedom” isn’t helping us.
2) It is important for us to understand why are are in Iraq. When you go to war against another countries based on lies, its will always end badly. We do really need to get out, apologize to the word for what we did when we invaded Iraq and just leave.
We can’t just fight Islamic terrorists with guns which can obviously be counterproductive. Middle Eastern countries need to be enlightened through the publishing of classical liberal thought in their language. A books not guns strategy would work and save so many lives.
This article is very VERY suspicious… GO RON!!! (read a book – Rudy needs to, SO SHOULD YOU)
Who IS Ron Paul? They still need to know!!
NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!
Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews in chronological
order.
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com
Nice article. I disagree about your statement that we would see “much the same thing” from a Democratic president as from Ron Paul. Though there would definitely be a pull out from Iraq, I haven’t heard anything from the rest of them about withdrawing from any of our other 100+ military positions in sovereign nations. Paul is the only one for instance, who actually says things like “why do we still have troops in Germany?”
Also, I don’t think that he ignores the other elements of the hatred of Western culture in the Middle East, but he makes the point that we exacerbate the situation by getting ourselves involved. Their cultural ideology is completely different from our own – fair enough, but so is Pakistan’s, India’s, and China’s. There are various fringe groups all over the world that hate the West enough to blow themselves up, but they lack the resources to stand a serious chance.
But when we march into a country, and spend blood and money to force our values on the citizens at gunpoint, when we exert so much effort to make sure that ours is the face and name of Western culture, we surely have an effect. We make it easier to recruit , we make it easier to fund raise, and we make ourselves easier to target.
Paul has said that he would not pull out the troops from Iraq overnight – that’s not feasible even according to him. But he would take action to start getting us out of there ASAP. And he would definitely pull us out of all our other aggressive military positions, except where Congress wants to declare war. What he has said many times, is that this is not about this individual engagement. This is about a change of policy, to stop digging ourselves deeper into a hole. A non-interventionist, trading partner policy would not solve the hatred of America overnight. But it would stop the rampant growth of that hatred that quickly. And over a longer period of time, the hatred would defuse, with no recruits, no money, and no visible target.
You say “IF we can do it diplomatically, without open warfare, we must do it.” Ron Paul (and I) believe that it can be done that way, and much more effectively than at the point of a gun. Radical religious thought of any type cannot be fought with guns without making martyrs, and thereby strengthening the enemy. Fighting it by ideals and benign trade undermines their position, and is much more effective.
Thank you for your article, I enjoyed reading it. I’m happy to see that serious, thinking discussion of foreign policy still exists in America, despite what we’ve seen in the Repub and Dem party debates.
I have read several articles lately about Ron Paul that seem to be written by people who don’t know and/or don’t understand much about him. This is one of those articles.
Leave A Reply