Video: Ron Paul reacts to Bhutto’s death by playing the same tired blame-America tune

posted at 4:47 pm on December 27, 2007 by Bryan

In a very, very narrow sense, he has a point: I argued at the time of the emergency rule that we were pushing too hard and too soon on Musharraf, a man attempting to lead a country that is about as riven with difficulty as a country can get. I argued that the course of pushing democracy was too risky at this point, and that the Bush administration ought to take a long look at what democracy delivered on Israel’s borders before pushing for more of the same in Pakistan. Pakistan is peculiarly troubled: All of its heroes, including Bhutto, are deeply flawed; neither Musharraf, Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif trust each other; all of them would benefit in one way or another if one or both of the others weren’t around, yet they all claim to be the only thing that can save Pakistan; and any could also be weakened by the untimely demise of any of the others. Behind them there’s the rising Islamist threat that, sorry John Derbyshire, Patriot Paul does not understand to a depth greater than a nanometer. The problems in Pakistan are not, ultimately, the results of busted American foreign policy. Our short-term policy hasn’t helped, but the environment in which the problems thrive goes back a few decades, or a few centuries. As we ought to have learned in Afghanistan during the 1990s, rubble can make a very great deal of trouble indeed.

But in Ron Paul’s world, all problems are the result of the US taking action. Any action. Anywhere. Against anyone, doing anything. In the case of Pakistan, he says we should cut off aid to our “puppet” in Pakistan and make sure not to march in there with troops. There is, of course, at most a neglible possibility that we’ll send troops into Pakistan to do anything beyond taking on al Qaeda or securing the nukes. India might, but even that’s highly unlikely. And never mind that Pakistan’s history with democracy is sketchy, to say the least. Should we not have attempted to work with Musharraf against al Qaeda, Patriot Paul? Paul also tosses out the canard that we supported Osama bin Laden. Someone really needs to disabuse him of that notion one of these days. Someone should bone him up on the history of al Qaeda as well. It didn’t form because we support Musharraf, as Paul seems to think.

Paul doesn’t even offer a pro forma statement of condolences either for Bhutto or Pakistan. As a doctor, he must have had splendid bedside manner.

Update: My mistake, Patriot Paul did issue a pro forma statement that Bhutto’s assassination is a “horrible tragedy.” It’s in the last third of the clip, and was short enough that I missed it the first couple of times I listened to the clip to summarize it.

Update: Ron Paul is, indeed, a first-rate ignoramus and a high-voiced crank. Here’s a response to today’s events that’s a little closer to my thinking. And I’m sure that if it gets enough exposure it’ll cause Patriot Paul to have an aneurysm.

I just got an e-mail from a buddy who’s now a senior enlisted military man, who says:

Musharraf, or the Pakistani people or who ever is still in charge, needs to open the northwest sector of their country up to us and we can hunt the [Al Qaeda terrorists] down and kill them like rabbits running out of a fire.

Special Forces, air support, a few drones with Hellfires attached. Nothing fancy.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

jp on December 28, 2007 at 1:06 AM

I’m just saying that his suggestion that Israel has “never lost a fight” so why are we worried about Iran, while also saying that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are right to hate us “because we’re in the middle east” is a little bit … hypocritical. Israel is Israel because of our middle east policy. No one will take them on head to head because it is a defacto declaration of war against us.

You can’t have it both ways.

Jaibones on December 28, 2007 at 1:10 AM

muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 1:05 AM

if we hadn’t of intervened, there would be no South Korea!!!! the whole place would’ve been what North Korea today is. It wasn’t the perfect outcome, but much better than a ‘non-interventionist’ outcome.

had we not intervened with Saddam the first time, most of the middle east oil supply would be under the grips of his whims. A guy supporting terrorist and trying to become a modern day Saladin.

jp on December 28, 2007 at 1:11 AM

MB4 on December 28, 2007 at 1:06 AM

Dude, the conspiracy crap doesn’t work here. No blog in the country was more opposed to CIR than this one and her commenters.

Jaibones on December 28, 2007 at 1:11 AM

Der eine heißt den andern dumm,
Am End’ weiß keiner nix.

–Ferdinand Raimund (Hobellied)

Entelechy on December 28, 2007 at 1:01 AM

The difference between Stupidity and Genius is that Genius has its limits.
- Murphy

MB4 on December 28, 2007 at 1:11 AM

Talon is a troll. Don’t feed him, he’s big enough already.

AprilOrit on December 28, 2007 at 1:12 AM

jp on December 28, 2007 at 1:11 AM

Bing. And suddenly the barrage of bs from the Ronulans seems to be lost in space.

Jaibones on December 28, 2007 at 1:12 AM

Dude, the conspiracy crap doesn’t work here. No blog in the country was more opposed to CIR than this one and her commenters.

Jaibones on December 28, 2007 at 1:11 AM

What on earth are you talking about, Dude?

MB4 on December 28, 2007 at 1:13 AM

@ Talon on December 28, 2007 at 1:03 AM

You are the CUTEST little online debater I have ever seen. You know you should seriously consider getting cuteness reduction surgery.

Those ADORABLE caps locks, and those spectacular ramblings, makes me all warm inside. And the fact that you brush off your ignorance of Hawaii history, and what a territory is, and the way you speculate about possible Japanese attacks on volcanoes from 70 years ago, absolutely PRECIOUS.

Speculation aside. Japan DID attack the UNITED STATES. Hawaii WAS a part of the United States. The navy based in Hawaii is COMPLETELY not comparable with the situation in Germany or South Korea or Japan current day. So overall, FAILURE, you lose. Keep calling me a “ronulan” and keep up the ignorance, its really serving you well. When you are done and you are willing to read a history textbook or encyclopedia or rather “History for Dummies”, throw me some legitimate questions that havent been answered by me before.

See, the reason no one is answering your dumb questions about RP and Iran, is that it has already been asked and answered in this thread. DONE and DONE. Goodnight, and seriously, good luck in life, you will need it.

muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 1:15 AM

“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former”

- – Albert Einstein

Why so much space and energy to little Ron Paul? Though, I saw a bumper-sticker for him today, first ever seen in CA.

Entelechy on December 28, 2007 at 1:16 AM

# jp on December 28, 2007 at 1:11 AM

That is rampant speculation. Look at China. If Korea would have turned out like them, maybe we should have left them alone.

muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 1:17 AM

muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 12:54 AM

That’s a pretty simplistic view there. We stopped the Axis in WWI, we stopped Japan and Germany in WWII, we stopped the Norks from taking over the Korean peninsula in the Korean War, which would have threatened Japan. If you think we left things undone in WWI, WWII and Korea, you are sadly mistaken.

As for the Gulf War, our goal was to liberate Kuwait, which we did. If you are going to Monday morning QB, do some more research (that doesn’t inlcude Wikipedia – hahaha).

reaganaut on December 28, 2007 at 1:18 AM

MB4 on December 28, 2007 at 1:13 AM

Sorry — wrong time stamp: 1:06 AM

Jaibones on December 28, 2007 at 1:19 AM

Why so much space and energy to little Ron Paul?

Entelechy on December 28, 2007 at 1:16 AM

That’s what I said.

He is not going to get the GOP nomination anyway, can’t we get back to beating up on McCain or The High Reverend Huckster.

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 11:48 PM

Maybe they will listen to you.

MB4 on December 28, 2007 at 1:19 AM

@ Entelechy on December 28, 2007 at 1:16 AM

Seeing as how all of the stories on here, pretty much, are negative, I would speculate the reason is as follows.

They (MSM, whoever runs this site, whoever you want “them” to be) are worried about RP losing the nomination to someone like Huckabee.

That is, IF that happened, and RP is sitting on tens of millions in cash, there is a possibility for a third party run. IF that happens, republicans have about a zero chance in hell to become president. NO one is voting for Huckabee nationally, unless they are a rampant evangelical on a religious super sunday thrillride, and there are a ton of people who wont vote for Hilldog. That leaves a large portion of moderates looking at RP. He won’t win, but a large enough vote for him and Hillary is in, and a third party is nearly established.

Of course, these are all speculations from someone on the brink of sleep, so who knows?

muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 1:22 AM

had we not intervened with Saddam the first time, most of the middle east oil supply would be under the grips of his whims. A guy supporting terrorist and trying to become a modern day Saladin.

A lot of Americans understand the first Gulf War, but can’t really figure out reason for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

As far as going to Baghdad Dick Cheney was against it before he was for it. In 1992 he made the following observation: “Once we had rounded [Saddam] up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.”

In the same talk, Cheney also said: “And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right”

dedalus on December 28, 2007 at 1:22 AM

That is rampant speculation. Look at China. If Korea would have turned out like them, maybe we should have left them alone.

Wow, you need to recuse yourself from any more “debates” until you can refrain from moronic statements like that.

reaganaut on December 28, 2007 at 1:24 AM

Well Jorge “ROP” Arbusto has left our borders wide open and his State Department has been issuing visas to the ME, especially Saudi Arabia, like there was a fire sale and his Tonto Juan McAmnesty is on deck, so get ready.

MB4 on December 28, 2007 at 1:06 AM

MB4 on December 28, 2007 at 1:06 AM

Dude, the conspiracy crap doesn’t work here. No blog in the country was more opposed to CIR than this one and her commenters.

Jaibones on December 28, 2007 at 1:11 AM

Sorry — wrong time stamp: 1:06 AM

Jaibones on December 28, 2007 at 1:19 AM

Huh. and sorry – I still have no idea what you are talking about.

MB4 on December 28, 2007 at 1:24 AM

Maybe they will listen to you.

MB4 on December 28, 2007 at 1:19 AM

Which thread are today’s late-nighters hanging out on? Such a ‘rich’ day, yet most topics must be exhausted already.

Entelechy on December 28, 2007 at 1:26 AM

Why so much space and energy to little Ron Paul? Though, I saw a bumper-sticker for him today, first ever seen in CA.

Entelechy on December 28, 2007 at 1:16 AM

I think it’s because he has such a perfect platform, aside from his unhinged foreign policy. Maybe some here worry that his knee-jerk anti-American ranting after incidents like the Bhutto assassination will discredit the conservatives who have publicly praised his other positions.

I certainly do.

Jaibones on December 28, 2007 at 1:26 AM

@ reaganaut on December 28, 2007 at 1:18 AM

You are kidding right? You think WWI was finished when we left? Do you know German history at all, maybe the years of 1919 – 1936 or so? The REASON WWII came to be was WWI. The REASON Korea came to be WAS WWII. The REASON vietnam came to be WAS WWII. We never look a step ahead, only at what is facing us in the here and now. We fought the Germans and made them poor so they couldnt fight another war. Their poverty led to nationalism and nationalism led to wealth and military power. We fought the Germans again with the communists as allies. We beat the Germans on the other side of the world, leaving the Communists control over the entire region. We fought the Communists several times across the world, including afghanistan where we funded their opposition. Afghanistan becomes a breeding ground for terrorism and they end up attacking us.

This HAS to make sense to you. It is ALL connected. Every action we take has a reaction. We only ever care about the action, NEVER the reaction. We should start caring about the reaction NEFORE considering an action.

muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 1:28 AM

Of course, these are all speculations from someone on the brink of sleep, so who knows?

muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 1:22 AM

Jaibones on December 28, 2007 at 1:26 AM

Both of you make valid points but, like today, so much can happen and no one will take him or Huckabee seriously, in any party.

Entelechy on December 28, 2007 at 1:31 AM

@ reaganaut on December 28, 2007 at 1:24 AM

What is moronic about it? Have you lived in China or even visited? I lived over there for several years. Also lived pretty much all over the region, visiting all over. I can tell you china has long since abandoned the entire communist economic system for a capitalist system, although they remain a totalitarian society socially. Having Korea like China would be a great success.

muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 1:31 AM

Sleep time. Please organize your attacks on my and my stupid viewpoints in an easy to read format for the morning, so I have something to giggle at while I drink my morning coffee and hard liqour.

muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 1:32 AM

me and my*

muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 1:33 AM

Which thread are today’s late-nighters hanging out on? Such a ‘rich’ day, yet most topics must be exhausted already.

Entelechy on December 28, 2007 at 1:26 AM

Actually since it is beginning to look like McCain could become Prez after all, we should all probably be over at

http://www.SpanishForDummies.com

instead of here.

MB4 on December 28, 2007 at 1:33 AM

no one will take him or Huckabee seriously, in any party.

Entelechy on December 28, 2007 at 1:31 AM

Sorry, I should have stated why – because they both project weakness, physical, strategic and philosophical. Something like today refocuses people’s senses, consciously, or subconsciously. From this perspective the libs have shot themselves into the foot head on the WoT. They miscalculated since Nov. 2006 in a big way. Even Hillary will have a hard time playing ‘hawk’ now, after having flopped like a chicken.

FC, this is looking forward, and not based on staying/not staying in Iraq.

Entelechy on December 28, 2007 at 1:37 AM

Heh, my Spanish is beyond that stage :) Remember, I’m from a Roman country. Unrelated to anything, the romance languages are really beautiful. One should learn Spanish if the opportunity exists, regardless of the immigration fiasco.

Entelechy on December 28, 2007 at 1:39 AM

That’s a pretty simplistic view there. We stopped the Axis in WWI

Before we entered the war in 1917 the Germans were about where they were in 1915, after the Schlieffen Plan had brought them within a few dozen miles of Paris and then they were forced into retreat.

The battles of Verdun and the Somme had been fought and the two sides had already sustained massive casualties along lines that were heavily entrenched.

By fighting with the Brits & French for about a year we helped end the war more quickly, but we also allowed the Treaty of Versailles to be inflicted upon Germany. The treaty would help to crush the Weimar Republic and usher in the Nazis.

If we had let the Europeans slug it out and they had come up with a more balanced treaty, would WWII have been avoided? Maybe.

dedalus on December 28, 2007 at 1:46 AM

dedalus on December 28, 2007 at 1:46 AM

BTW: I don’t blame America for that. I blame the French. I also blame them for Vietnam. That’s another thread.

dedalus on December 28, 2007 at 1:51 AM

Interjecting Michael Savage’s take, folks.

The day Romney was caught in his fabricated vision, he “saw” Daddy march with MLK, the Savage show featured rerun anti-Mormon material with Savage nuancing endorsement of Romney as having impeccable character.

This evening, returning to work during his vacation because of the Bhutto assassination, Savage overtly endorsed Romney for being the “ONLY candidate” who mentioned jihad in today’s campaign rhetoric.

OBVIOUSLY, Savage missed Thompson’s outstanding interview today on Fox prior to Bush. That Thompson got air time is news itself. What Thompson says is always newsworthy in debate and interview. Michael Savage failed to cover Thompson’s remarks that outshown Romney’s regarding America, Pakistan, and the Taliban/alQuaeda. Thompson’s experience puts Romney to shame, as Mitt can only spout prefab lines from his re-imaging profession.

The timing of Savage’s appeals for financial contributions to cover his law suit vs. CAIR coincides precisely with his pro-Romney schtick. So follow the money. And how the mighty have fallen. Oh well, having promoted himself as the nation’s prophet, Savage has more in common with the Romney clan than desired.

maverick muse on December 28, 2007 at 1:53 AM

We would like a candidate who does not appear to be obviously insane. We’d like knowledge, judgment, a prudent understanding of the world and of the ways and histories of the men and women in it.

– Peggy Noonan

Mike Huckabee gets enough demerits to fall into my not-reasonable column.

Notice that Ms. Noonan doesn’t even mention Ron Paul.

Entelechy on December 28, 2007 at 2:00 AM

I saw a clip of Ron Paul on the Morton Downey Jr. show, he hasn’t changed one bit. As much of a blow hard Morton Downey was, he really let Paul have it, witch was nice.

liquidflorian on December 28, 2007 at 2:39 AM

hah!

Ugly on December 28, 2007 at 2:44 AM

So here, Ronulans: answer me this. What plan does Ron Paul offer to defend our allies, and us, against Islamic Jihad, rising Chinese power, the resurgance of the Russian Bear, and, of course, the little fact of our treaties to protect our allies?

Does Ron Paul think we should withdraw from NATO, from defending Japan, Israel, Australia?

They can fend for themselves? Who will defend the Eastern European countries against Putin? Think the French would, even with a strong military? Should we encourage a new German military machine?

The US is the only world superpower. Ron Paul would have us abdicate that power. And what then, Ronulans? Would you accept responsibility for the ensuing world chaos? The bloody age that would come as people and nations go back to the old ways of military domination, because they have nothing to fear from the US?

Who is there to restrain the Chinese from advancing on Taiwan? The US Seventh Fleet–but Ron Paul want’s it drydocked in San Diego. Our allies in South Korea? Let’s feed the millions there to the maniacal plans of the Kims. Israel? Well, we all know Ron Paul probably wants all the Jews killed anyway… or at least a large chunk of his supporters do.

Who’s going to protect Lithuania from Putin? Poland? Romania? Don’t those countries deserve a chance at liberty? Ron Paul says no, he’d not lift a finger to stop the enemies of freedom from advancing. Only if they managed to attack US soil would he even notice. And then, it’s only if he had a Congress that would think that fighting communism or Jihadism was a good thing.

And with the current Dem’s in congress, that’s no sure thing.

What happens to the Monroe doctrine? What if Venezuala attacked the Panama canal? That’s not US soil… so Ron Paul puts up a “Chavez welcome here” sign.

Does the US stand for something or doesn’t it? Do we have principles? Or not?

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 2:57 AM

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 2:57 AM

Ron Paul stated that our involvement in the Korean war was, “totally unjustified.”

BohicaTwentyTwo on December 28, 2007 at 8:29 AM

His National Security Plan begins in Montauk and ends in San Diego. Wait, maybe he plans to defend Hawaii, too.

Jaibones on December 28, 2007 at 8:40 AM

What a (sounds like pick)!!!

Golfer_75093 on December 28, 2007 at 9:19 AM

@ Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 2:57 AM

Can you explain to me why its America’s job to defend all those countries? Why are we in charge of defending Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Australia, easter europe, central america, canada, israel, half of the middle east, etc??

Why can’t these countries which can FULLY defend themselves, rely on their OWN armies or navies? Why do we have to defend the world?

muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 11:35 AM

A lot of Americans understand the first Gulf War, but can’t really figure out reason for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

As far as going to Baghdad Dick Cheney was against it before he was for it. In 1992 he made the following observation: “Once we had rounded [Saddam] up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.”

In the same talk, Cheney also said: “And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right”

dedalus on December 28, 2007 at 1:22 AM

some key events and time passed in between that and 2003, that really changed things.

Victor Davis Hanson, has a great column on How we got into Iraq: The Long War in a Nutshell

But after September 11, and the realization that state-sponsored terrorists from the Middle East had the desire to destroy the United States and the capability to do it great harm, the decade-long containment of Saddam Hussein, in light also of his serial violations of both armistice and U.N. accords, was considered inadequate. Few disagreed.

So both houses of Congress, backed by an overwhelming majority of the American people, authorized the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein, at the vigorous request of the President.

The WMD Debacle
Though the Congress in October 2002 formulated 23 different reasons why Saddam posed a threat to our security, the administration — in easy hindsight, quite wrongly — mostly privileged and exaggerated just one writ: Saddam’s arsenals of weapons of mass destruction might enhance Middle East terrorist operations enough to trump even what we had witnessed on 9/11.

Supporters of a narrow war to remove WMDs relied on a past, though false consensus of such an existential threat; it was one, however, that had nevertheless prompted embargoes, sanctions, no-fly zones, and periodic bombing. Perhaps they were sure of such a WMD danger because it had been formulated at home in the 1990s and echoed abroad by both European and Middle Eastern agencies — and alone would galvanize the public in a way the other sanctioned casus belli might not.

jp on December 28, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Ron Paul is the epitome of an idiot. I couldn’t imagine this fool running a dog pound!

byteshredder on December 28, 2007 at 12:27 PM

jp on December 28, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Our intelligence inside Iraq was poor. Most agree on that.

Leading up to the invasion many in the military felt that containment was effective and that there were other priorities for resources in the GWOT. Embarking on nation building on-the-cheap and then getting bogged down for 5 years was the wrong choice in battling a terrorist network that can move among dozens of countries.

With the no-fly zones, Saddam was a corrupt and murderous dictator who had been reduced to little more than mayor of Baghdad from a geopolitical standpoint.

dedalus on December 28, 2007 at 12:40 PM

My two favorite wars were illegal wars

The American Revolution
The American Civil War

My two favorite Presidents led these wars and broke many laws along the way. Washington admitted he was overthrowing the government, while Lincoln bypassed Congress and used an Executive order, the Emancipation Proclamation to declare an end to slavery.

What does this have to do with Ron Paul? Nothing.

Give me a General who goes to war knowing he will have a complete and total victory and I will demote him immediately to prove that nothing is promised in this world.

Give me a Congress who will fight to the death and I will suspect their identities as Congressmen

entagor on December 28, 2007 at 12:44 PM

With the no-fly zones, Saddam was a corrupt and murderous dictator who had been reduced to little more than mayor of Baghdad from a geopolitical standpoint.

dedalus on December 28, 2007 at 12:40 PM

he was funding and supporting Terrorist, paying out 20k bonuses to Hamas suicide bombers, offering Bin Laden assylum in 1999….like Hanson notes, we had 23 different reasons for War against him, not just WMD as most think of it.

http://husseinandterror.com

and Terror as an existential threat is the key reason why.

and since Al-Qaeda has been crippled in many ways and a recent theologian announced how Jihad had been a huge disaster for them, and the fact we haven’t had anymore attacks…its hard to say something is going right.

jp on December 28, 2007 at 12:55 PM

Washington admitted he was overthrowing the government

Washington might have made himself king. It was his good judgment and our good fortune that our revolutionary fathers were wise enough to set up a system of government that provided for a balance of power and constitutional rights rather than their own enrichment.

When you have an “illegal” revolution sometimes you get a Washington. Other times you get a Lenin, Castro or Mao.

dedalus on December 28, 2007 at 1:12 PM

Muyoso: Because we have interests in seeing those countries remain free. Why did we threaten France after the Civil War, when it was playing around in Mexico? Because no one needed a major European power playing around in our back yard.

States like Romania can’t beat Russia if they were invaded. They don’t have the manpower, money, or size of military to do so. The only reason Taiwan might be able to fend off China is because there’s an ocean strait… and China is busy building a massive navy to overcome that.

Do you seriously believe that what happens in other countries, even as close as CANADA doesn’t matter? We have exports to those countries; we import their goods. They rely on us to defend them against the big bullies of the world. Not many states can defend themselves against the big countries, despite your apparent belief that Costa Rica has the military power to fend off Venezuela.

If you honestly don’t see that the US has interests in other countries remaining free…. then your head is in the sand. When Europe falls, and South America falls, and the Asian countries fall, and Oceania, and Canada falls…. why wouldn’t we fall then, too?

To go to an analogy, from the Lord of the Rings: Ron Paul wants to be the Shire–fat and happy and unconcerned about anything outside it’s borders.

But who’s going to be our Rivendell, our Gondor, our Rangers to keep us safe? Sorry, bub–WE are Gondor. It’s our duty as the leader of the free world to actually lead.

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 1:12 PM

we had 23 different reasons for War against him, not just WMD as most think of it.

It sounds like we agree that the “smoking gun as mushroom cloud” phrase was more of a marketing effort than quality analysis. I’ll agree that we had 23 reasons to fear Saddam and to kill him. My point is I’d probably rather have those 23 problems than the 5+ years of occupation and the prospect of long-term Sadrist power in Iraq.

Has our invasion killed some Al Queda figures like Zarqawi? Sure. Has it been a recruiting tool for other disaffected Sunni’s who have been dislocated and had family killed? Sure. Even Don Rumsfeld wondered in one of his “snowflakes” whether we were killing them faster than we were creating them.

dedalus on December 28, 2007 at 1:23 PM

why wouldn’t we fall then, too

10,000 nuclear weapons and a military that could probably beat the rest of the world combined.

We have exports to those countries; we import their goods. They rely on us to defend them against the big bullies of the world.

You are right about the importance of protecting trade routes and trading partners. Historically, world powers have routinely done this, as has the United States.

dedalus on December 28, 2007 at 1:31 PM

I just cannot help thinking of “Fortress Europe” that Hitler had whenever I hear of Ron Paul’s remarks about retreating to the US and sealing it off.

We all know, I hope, how well Fortress Europe defended the third Reich.

I don’t care how good our military is…. you get the hordes of Islamic types on Canadian soil, or Mexico, and we cannot stop them. Not without turning everything around us to glass. And if Ron Paul supporters are arguing that we should wait until we glass the planet, then I say–they are responsible for not trying other things first.

And for the billions of deaths that would result from the Ron Paul policy.

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 4:00 PM

We all know, I hope, how well Fortress Europe defended the third Reich.

Hitler was kidding himself if he thought he ever had a European fortress. By the time the US began pouring in resources to the offensive against Germany Rommel had been bogged down at El Alamein with his supply routes severely compromised, the Brits had gained the ability to break Enigma, the Luftwaffe had lost the Battle of Britain, and Hitler was embarking on what would be a disaster in Stalingrad.

From that position Hitler was to face the United States, Britain and the Soviets. For Hitler, in the summer of 1942, the notion of a fortress without air or sea superiority wasn’t much comfort.

If the US were to face Islamic military powers equal to what Germany faced and if we lost air and sea superiority to those Islamic powers, yeah that would be a problem. Right now our problem is stopping terrorists who operate on $50,000 budgets and a copy of Popular Mechanics.

dedalus on December 28, 2007 at 9:12 PM

Hey Paul.

Don’t blame America, blame Bhutto’s freaking moon roof.

Ryan Gandy on December 29, 2007 at 1:13 AM

@ Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 1:12 PM

Did you seriously just quote Lord of the Rings in a serious dicussion? Are you kidding me? I’m amazed you didnt go into the complexity of trade relations by comparing Harry Potter and Dumbledorf.-

You don’t have to take the situation to Z in order to prove a point. IF countries requested our help when under attack, and IF we voted on it and declared war, THEN maybe it would be justified. We dont exist to make the world utopia. Other countries can handle their own business.

muyoso on December 29, 2007 at 1:31 AM

To go to an analogy, from the Lord of the Rings: Ron Paul wants to be the Shire–fat and happy and unconcerned about anything outside it’s borders.

But who’s going to be our Rivendell, our Gondor, our Rangers to keep us safe? Sorry, bub–WE are Gondor. It’s our duty as the leader of the free world to actually lead.

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 1:12 PM

lol I like it. WE ARE GONDOR!
(finally, a ron paul thread gets fun)

Keli on December 29, 2007 at 1:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3