[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
9/11 See other 9/11 Articles Title: Ron Paul’s immoral foreign policy This is the first in a 5-part series critically examining the platform of Ron Paul, the much in-vogue Republican candidate for President. In this installment, I plan to make the case against Paul’s foreign policy platform, which I intend to show is 1)immoral, 2)unrealistic/outdated, and ultimately 3)bad for America and its allies. (As a sub-point, I would also note that, despite claims to the contrary, it is also isolationist). Were Ron Paul to be elected, I posit, his foreign-policy positions alone would mean a world that was significantly less safe and hostile to the United States– even more so than today. Before I begin addressing the 3-point criticism of his actual platform, I feel it is incumbent to answer the childish and inaccurate claims that Paul makes about the Iraq war, and to examine how Paul manipulates the current discussion to over-emphasize them. To begin, I would recommend visiting Paul’s foreign-policy page, wherein he opens with the following screed: The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again. Paul makes 4 points in this paragraph: 1. The Iraq war was “sold” by false information 2. Iraq is more dangerous than when we entered it 3. We have created “blowback”, spawning more terrorists than before 4. It has cost too much, both in lives and money Assertion 1) is a blatant attempt to accuse the Bush Administration of lying without actually coming out and saying it– after all, were one to point out that the information that the war was supposedly “sold” on was agreed upon by every major U.S. ally would no doubt engender a response from Paul supporters that it claims merely to be “inaccurate”–regardless of who believed it to be true. And yet this removes completely the context of the causus belli Iraq war– after all Saddam’s own generals were dismayed to discover that he in fact did not have a sprawling, secret WMD program, and Israeli, French, English, Russian, Chinese, and German intelligence agencies all concurred with the CIA’s assessments of Iraq’s WMD program. The implicit claim of Paul’s platform is that the information needed to be “sold”– when in fact, it stood on its own merits by any reasonable standard. By attempting to avoid this critical context, Paul in effect lies in the opening sentences of his foreign policy position by quite clumsily stealing a page directly out of the MoveOn.org playbook. The second assertion, that Iraq is more dangerous than when we entered it, is not only a red herring, it is debatably false– that is, depending on how one defines “dangerous”. Indeed, prewar sanctions on Iraq were killing thousands of civilians each month, and his brutal regime was being allowed to oppress the entirety of the population. To be sure, in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion, there remains an incredibly unsafe environment in Iraq– but one must ask themselves which environment is inherently “less safe”: one where jihadists are actively challenged by the most powerful military on the face of the earth, or the environment wherein an oppressive government is allowed to murder unchecked. While less people may have been killed by the Saddam regime daily than are killed in Iraq by militant jihadists, there is a discernible difference between both situations. Indeed, even if one agrees with Paul that Iraq is less safe now than it was under Saddam, that says nothing about the inherent morality or sustainability of the war itself– after all, the Allied landing at Normandy made the whole of Europe less safe than it was under the iron grip of Nazi rule, but very few people would pen breathless treatises against the liberation of that continent. The third assertion– that we are spawning more terrorism by our presence in Iraq (the so-called “blowback” theory) is easily defeated by the simple fact that terrorists existed and harmed the United States external to, and before, our troops were in Iraq. Indeed, the long-winded explanations that Bin Laden gave as justification for 9/11 may have mentioned the U.S. military, but were far more directed against American (specifically, globalized and capitalist) culture. Indeed, the recent success of the “surge” in Iraq– which in some areas has reduced violence by 70%, shows that the inevitable consequences of military success are less– not more– terrorist actions. Simply put, Paul cannot simply dismiss the argument that the United States should fight terrorists in Iraq rather than in the streets of New York city by claiming that the invasion of Iraq lead to more terrorist action. Terrorists do not need an excuse to kill Americans– and while we may be facing significant opposition in Iraq and elsewhere, to suggest that such realities mean that we should pullout of Iraq wholesale is an exceedingly weak, and I might add, dishonest argument. If one agrees with the first 3 assertions, the 4th follows quite nicely. If, however, one disagrees with them, than the fourth is somewhat moot– after all, what is the price of American security? I would wager that, given that less soldiers have died in Iraq than in single days in the Second World War, those who believe in the inherent justification of the Iraq war certainly believe that it is worth the cost in lives and money to ensure American– and global– security. It is worth noting that the fact that Paul opens his foreign-policy statement with such a detailed critique of the Iraq war is evidence itself that he is using this one particular stance to garner support from factions that most likely disagree with the rest of his political positions. It makes no sense that he would define his entire foreign policy on one particular sticking point– the war in Iraq– unless he realized that it would somehow benefit his political position. I, for one, believe that Paul is smart enough to realize that if he continues to overemphasize his very chic opinion vis a vis Iraq, he can manipulate the media– and fringe elements of the right– in order to say, raise $4 million in a single day. But that’s a different story. With that out of the way, lets move on to a larger critique of Paul’s foreign policy, which I outlined in the opening paragraph: 1. Ron Paul’s platform is immoral Ron Paul stands staunchly against what he considers to be “police” actions– which presumably are those wherein the United States works with international partners to help secure troubled areas of the world external to an actual war. The difference between a “police action” and an actual war is famously thin, however, the validity of a police action is nonetheless obvious when one examines examples throughout history. One of the most famous “police actions” in the past few years was the NATO intervention in Kosovo, wherein military action was used to halt what amounted to genocide. Indeed, when one views the world in context, one wonders why there aren’t more “police actions” in places like Darfur, where millions have been displaced or murdered by vicious militants. Would Paul have supported a “police action” in Rwanda, where the world sat by and watched while millions of people were slaughtered wholesale– on the basis that the United States had no interest– economic or otherwise– to stop that horrific example of widespread ethnic cleansing? Ron Paul notes in his platform that Kosovars have turned on the United States and supported Islamic militants– gleefully asking whether we should regret saving them. I respond thus: who cares? The United States saved lives in Kosovo, and no matter the “blowback” it was nonetheless a moral response. It is worth noting that this is the major departure that Paul has with so-called neoconservatives, who believe that military action has the power to solve a wide array of problems– many of which would constitute the “police actions” that Paul describes. It is also worth noting that no one should be compared to Reagan who does not believe that America is a force for good in the world, and that we have the responsibility to intervene militarily in situations where the helpless are being oppressed. Ron Paul’s isolationist platform– and it is isolationist, no matter how many times he and his supporters claim that it isn’t– is, in effect, an implicit endorsement of genocide. 2. Ron Paul’s platform is unrealistic and outdated Ron Paul claims to want to see support and goodwill toward America fostered around the world. And yet, in the same breath, he advocates ignoring military resolutions of international bodies such as the United Nations– a move that would surely cause consternation and incredibly dislike of America and her policies around the globe– possibly even moreso that what George W. Bush has supported. Indeed, even his opinion on Iraq– which, of all things, claims to bolster the security of the United States (presumably by allowing jihadists– including Al Qaeda– to consolidate power in the ensuing chaos, and giving them a have wherein to plot attacks against the United States). In a globalized world, it is incredibly unrealistic and foolish to ignore resolutions by one of the most powerful (and, I might add, deeply flawed) organizations in the world. Please don’t think this is an endorsement of the United Nations– Google this site for “Oil for Food”, and you will see that I support wholesale reform of the organization– I merely believe that destroying our relationship with this body would be one of the most unwise unilateral actions the United States has ever taken. Why does Paul not call for reform of the manner in which military resolutions are passed– to work with the U.N.? Because his platform is not based in practical considerations. 3. Ron Paul’s Platform is bad for American and her allies The mere fact that Ron Paul wishes to engage in an action that would create a haven for terrorists (Iraq) should be evidence enough of how poorly he would protect the interests of the United States abroad. But consider his other positions. Paul favors– among other things– that America withdraw from NATO, eroding immensely one of the strongest pro-Western military alliances– in the face of, I might add, one of the strongest anti-Western movements: jihadism. Paul also opposes the very notion of the draft (while, in a clear example of fear-mongering claiming that it is soon to be called up), which was one of the main tools the United States used to defeat Nazism in Europe. All in all, he seems to be against military alliances– does anyone think that this would at all strengthen the position of the United States in international relations? Ultimately, it is Ron Paul’s success that his driven him to hold such radical positions– capitalizing on the resounding success of his anti-war message, he has made himself into the quintessential anti-war candidate. He may have held the same policy positions for 30 years, but that says nothing about the relative strength of those positions– especially when they are masked by a comparatively contemporary one– the Iraq war. His platform as a whole would erode the already threatened strength of American foreign-policy by isolating us away from critical alliances such as NATO, and harming our relationship with the U.N., which would greatly hamper attempts to reform it. Ron Paul is wrong for America. He promises to isolate us from the rest of the world, and to make it a significantly more dangerous place. His platform would hamstring America’s efforts to prevent oppression around the world, and, in the short term, he would create a terrorist haven in Iraq. Ron Paul does not offer “hope” for America– or anyone else.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 15.
#5. To: longnose gar (#0)
See where talk show host Glenn Beck referred to supporters of Ron Paul as "terrorists"? The boycott of his sponsors is underway...people are pissed!
No I missed it! So who are his sponsors? I want to be sure to boycott too.
Scroll down through this page ...you'll see most of them. Walgreens seems to be the one most are going after...
http://www.garmin.com/garmin/cms/sit...upportcontacts https://www.progressive.com/contact-us.aspx http://www.volvocars.us/footer/contact/ Thanks! Everyone, if possible boycott these Glenn Beck sponsors. Remember, we're terrorists according to Glenn Beck, just for supporting Ron Paul.
You should see the reaction from the MILITARY supporters of Congressman Paul. Beck just REALLY f*cked up...if Imus gets canned for referring to a woman's basketball team as "nappy headed hos"; then Beck should be fired for calling Paul supporters, many of whom are in the military, terrorists. Good riddance, Beck.
Beck is protected by the super deluxe, Kevlar coated Zionist vest. It cannot be penetrated by criticism from folks like us. Yep, I'm that pessimistic.
There are no replies to Comment # 15. End Trace Mode for Comment # 15.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||