Video: Ron Paul knocks paper money, Afghanistan surge at CPAC
posted at 8:19 pm on February 27, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Skip ahead to 13:35 for the start of the foreign-policy passage — a few minutes in, he recycles the bogus Lancet statistic of a million Iraqi deaths from the war — or to 16:20 for a history lesson that culminates with Afghanistan and begins with the claim that our entry into World War I somehow led to hundreds of millions of deaths in the 20th century. This, of course, is why the left appreciates him even though his economic philosophy’s anathema: There’s no violence anywhere in the world that he can’t blame on American policy. As long as we have troops stationed abroad and favor some nations over others, we’re guilty of original sin; he’s that fanatic an isolationist. Except, that is, when his political future’s on the line, as it was after 9/11 when the country supported Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan overwhelmingly and Paul quietly went along. Didn’t he “know anything about history”?
Watching this, I thought of Limbaugh’s point about wanting The One to fail. Rush assumes, at least tacitly, that Obama’s loss will be mainstream Republicans’ gain. I’m not so sure. The more desperate things get economically, the more appeal Paul’s paleocon message will have and the more legitimized isolationism will become by extension. Be careful what you wish for.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 4 Next »
I don’t know what alien lifeform has been probing Ron Paul, but it needs to ease up.
Chuck Schick on February 27, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Any chance of seeing Wayne LaPierre speech?
FloatingRock on February 27, 2009 at 8:23 PM
ron paul will NEVER, EVER get over 10% in any republican primary. The guy just wont ever win as a republican.
ousoonerfan15 on February 27, 2009 at 8:23 PM
You lost me at Ron Paul.
As for the Obamanomics issue, just look at what happened to Cigarman, or the Peanut Guy. History does have a tendency to repeat.
DannoJyd on February 27, 2009 at 8:27 PM
Off topic but I felt I had to vent. I just saw a quick ad on FoxNews that Hannity will have John McCain on tonight. Does anyone really give a crap what McCain has to say? Maybe Hannity can have Specter on next. That’s why I can’t take Hannity half the time. Besides, if you rely on Hannity for your knowledge you’re in bad shape.
Jeff on February 27, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Ron Paul do you know anything about history ?
Cowardice and stupidity should never go hand in hand or be as brazenly on display as it is with Ron Paul
William Amos on February 27, 2009 at 8:30 PM
Bircheresque crank.
ReubenJCogburn on February 27, 2009 at 8:33 PM
That’s the thing about Paul. He opposes frivolous legislation honoring people or teams…until he’s voting for them. He apparently opposes pork…until he’s acquiring it for his district.
amerpundit on February 27, 2009 at 8:33 PM
Sorry, but anymore Ron Paul sounds more credible than the rest of the Republican Party…
ninjapirate on February 27, 2009 at 8:34 PM
…and dirigible manufacturers rejoice at the end of their one-industry recession.
James on February 27, 2009 at 8:35 PM
If Obama doesn’t check himself before we he wrecks himself and us, some defensively isolationist approach may be all we can manage or afford. If we don’t have the will and staying power to stay on offense, an increasingly battered and austere defense may be all that’s left to us, by necessity.
CK MacLeod on February 27, 2009 at 8:36 PM
I didn’t watch the speech, but occasionally I agree with Paul on some matters of economics and personal liberty, but he loses me on the isolationist foreign policy craziness. It’s just absurd.
CP on February 27, 2009 at 8:38 PM
Who was the moron that let him on stage at CPAC?
bj1126 on February 27, 2009 at 8:39 PM
Cowardice
William Amos on February 27, 2009 at 8:30 PM
This single word sums up Ron Paul for me.
Otis B on February 27, 2009 at 8:40 PM
He kept saying “we” and “our”………….
……… interesting,
The only thing that I truly admired about President George W. Bush, was his commitment to keep this country safe by taking the fight to the enemy, instead of appeasement and waiting around like a fireman to put a fire out.
During that time, Dr. Paul was not a “we” and “our” kind of guy………
……… he was more of “him” and “they”.
Hey Dr. Paul……..
……… why were you even invited to CPAC?
Seven Percent Solution on February 27, 2009 at 8:44 PM
Ron Paul is the man. Austrian economics all the way!! More people need to listen to what he has to say about the economy and actually follow his advice.
nazo311 on February 27, 2009 at 8:49 PM
AP, that’s pretty insulting to the people on your site.
Yah… we’re all going to jump into the arms of Ron Paul cause we’re so desperate.
ug…
katy on February 27, 2009 at 8:49 PM
Ron Paul is why I’m basically a man without a party. The isolationist policies of the Libertarian Party are not grounded in reality.
rbj on February 27, 2009 at 8:49 PM
Ron Paul is wrong that America creates problems overseas. But he is right in that it does not serve her interests to be nation building for people who can’t, and won’t, appreciate it and spending a trillion dollars, it doesn’t have, to do so. If fighting terrorism was the actual goal, we would start at home by tightening the borders, closing down CAIR, eliminating islamic immigration, and wiretapping every mosque. Instead, America is funneling billions into the islamic world in a goodwill gesture designed to “win hearts and minds”.
keep the change on February 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM
There is absolutely no way to know for sure if it did or did not as we can not have a time machine induced redo, but it is certainly a very reasonable possibility given the contribution that the punitive Treaty of Versailles may well have had on the genesis of WWII.
MB4 on February 27, 2009 at 8:52 PM
I could stomache the man if he only talked about economic matters. But his foreign policy outlook makes it very, very difficult to take the man seriously. It’s amazing that he can be so blind to the facts of life once they pass our borders.
BadgerHawk on February 27, 2009 at 8:55 PM
Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not!
- Ron Paul ?
MB4 on February 27, 2009 at 8:59 PM
If it fails, it will be led by economic issues. As seen by the fact that Obama, himself, backed down from protectionism (in my view the only thing he has gotten right so far) i.e., the “buy America” provision of the stimulus, this issue would be an easy sell for mainstream Republicans. In fact, with enough weight to damage the Paulnuts. When the misery index reaches the point where people act to reject socialism, they will not pour fuel on the smoldering economy.
genso on February 27, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Nonsense. If anything, the failing socialist economy will provide the perfect impetus for a Euro-style union with socialist Mexico and socialist Canada.
TMK on February 27, 2009 at 9:02 PM
I took up this point in a headline thread. If the GOP continues to ignore Paul’s legitimate points then they remain a fractured party. To draw Paul’s uncrazy supportes and drain off some of his enthusiam they do need to address the Fed’s easy money policy that is going to bring hyperinflation. Yes they need to acknowledge that a gold standard disciplines a government against defecit spending. If you do not deal with it you get a fracturing of the party that could lead not to a 3rd party but a 4th and 5th.
Theworldisnotenough on February 27, 2009 at 9:04 PM
“bj1126 on February 27, 2009 at 8:39 PM”
That is indeed the question of the hour!
Buckaroo on February 27, 2009 at 9:05 PM
“Paul’s uncrazy supportes[sic]”
i dunno, if those ~900 haven’t figgered it out by now …
:-)
Buckaroo on February 27, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Ron Paul does nothing to help conservatism or the Republican Party.
Ron Paul helps Ron Paul and the liberals, and nobody else.
logis on February 27, 2009 at 9:06 PM
Win the ‘trust’ of people who hate us? What?
MB4 on February 27, 2009 at 9:07 PM
and begins with the claim that our entry into World War I somehow led to hundreds of millions of deaths in the 20th century.
America entered WW1 in April 1917, the Russian revolution began in October 1917. I’d say that the rise of communism led to hundreds of millions of deaths in the 20th century, then again I’m not as enlightened as the lazy-eyed geekballs who trail around behind Ron Paul.
Bishop on February 27, 2009 at 9:09 PM
He’s right on economic policy
He’s right on monetary policy
He’s right on foreign policy.
The “mainstream” Republican cocoon featuring Rush Limbaugh and Joe Wurzelbacher isn’t the future of the Republican party. Their ideas have failed for too long.
The conservative movement is due for a change. Support for Ron Paul and his policies will increase as the economy deteriorates, as the fiat dollar collapses in the next decade whether Allahpundit and the rest of the liberal Republicans like it or not.
The Dean on February 27, 2009 at 9:11 PM
Dutchman flies Islamization into world spotlight
MB4 on February 27, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Kirchick should go back in the closet.
The Dean on February 27, 2009 at 9:13 PM
@ dean
um, when you actually state “He’s right on foreign policy” that should disqualify you from any and all further discussion of any mattter involving other countries …
/muscle straining eyeroll
Buckaroo on February 27, 2009 at 9:15 PM
So are you saying you don’t have a problem with Obama’s socialist goals?
Kjeil on February 27, 2009 at 9:15 PM
Heheh.. you neoconservatives crack me up. You’d think the man was talking like a socialist and wanting to redistribute wealth like McCain did.
popularpeoplesfront on February 27, 2009 at 9:17 PM
“Kjeil on February 27, 2009 at 9:15 PM”
jmo, but a.p. is warning us that the failure of barry’s spending would drive joe sixpack into rupaul’s arms, or something. i maintain that no matter how bad the national balance sheet looks, it will never be bad enough to justify the lunacy that is rupaul …
Buckaroo on February 27, 2009 at 9:18 PM
Obama is already setting records for accomplishment.
His first full month as Prez saw the DOW register it’s biggest monthly drop, and not just in numbers but in percentage, since 1933.
MB4 on February 27, 2009 at 9:19 PM
I agree with him on isolationism. His mother never should have let him cross the street.
Ronnie on February 27, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Bush’s foreign policy has been one of the most destructive since World War I. Don’t buy the propoganda coming from Obama et al, the Iraq War isn’t even near over. We’ll be in there at least another decade, while our economy spirals into into Great Depression II.
The death toll will be 1 million murdered by Bush’s decision to go it by the time the conflict is over.
Neoconservatism failed, so what do we need but more neoconservatism? /sarcasm
The Dean on February 27, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Obama is bringing us back to the future. Or futuring us back to the past. It will be beaucoup deja vu all over again!
MB4 on February 27, 2009 at 9:22 PM
“The Dean on February 27, 2009 at 9:21 PM”
wow, how do u sleep at night knowing u.s. soldiers are on active duty within the borders of germany and japan then?
/go toke up, stfd, and stfu
Buckaroo on February 27, 2009 at 9:26 PM
Paul’s foreign policy would be equally destructive. A Paul presidency would put us 8 years into the future, which is about the time that Europe will be coming apart in Islamic chaos. You think Iran with a single nuclear weapon is dangerous to the U.S. well France or the U.K. has 100s, and Paul’s response will be isolationism, but the world is much smaller than it was. ICBMs have little respect for the Atlantic or the Pacific.
DFCtomm on February 27, 2009 at 9:26 PM
Well maybe. But let’s not forget that any disaster that comes from even a failure of Obama’s presidency is Obama’s and his voters’ fault, not Rush’s, and not those that voted for McCain. Obama is a destroyer. We will be lucky if anything good can come of his defeat.
JiangxiDad on February 27, 2009 at 9:29 PM
Count me with those who realize we live in a world markedly different than that of the 1920s. America’s interests are international and those interests must be defended. Whether it’s a victim nation like Iraq and Afghanistan held down for generations by tyrants bent on world domination or an isolated but critically important pipeline feeding Europe heat in the winter.
I have an ongoing debate with a buddy who is a strong Paul supporter. He says we should be involved in any fight that doesn’t involve American soil. I ask him where the line is then? If it is American shores then he is saying the USA is willing to surrender Europe AGAIN to the barbarian hordes.
A bit of news from Kentucky! Congressman Paul’s son is said to be interested in Senator Bunning’s seat.
Pilgrim on February 27, 2009 at 9:30 PM
Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy are more in line with historical conservatism than any other Republican’s. His economic views cannot be separated from his foreign policy views, they both find their sources in the same principle. Conservatism did not start with Reagan and Goldwater, and, in fact, modern conservatism is really another form of liberalism. Modern conservatism shares many of the same premises that liberalism does, which is why all of our recent presidents, Republican or Democrat, have engaged us in wars abroad. It is a shame that conservatism today has been defined as support for the Iraq War.
Innocent Smith on February 27, 2009 at 9:30 PM
The Four Blog Hit Horseman of Allahpundit:
Atheism, Palin, Paul and creationism!
Pump up this thread, troops! Don’t let AP down.
MB4 on February 27, 2009 at 9:32 PM
“Innocent Smith on February 27, 2009 at 9:30 PM”
er, no, the real shame is libertarianism today is defined as toking up and dropping out …
Buckaroo on February 27, 2009 at 9:32 PM
Crap…my buddy says we SHOULDN’T be involved in any fight that doesn’t involve American soil.
Pilgrim on February 27, 2009 at 9:32 PM
Hell no! Bunning is my favorite senator, and I won’t trade him in for the scion of Ron Paul.
DFCtomm on February 27, 2009 at 9:34 PM
“Atheism, Palin, Paul and creationism!”
HEH
Buckaroo on February 27, 2009 at 9:34 PM
Have him watch the people jumping from the World Trade Center.
Also, maybe nobody outside his immediate family ought to give him a hand when he needs one, based on the same principal.
JiangxiDad on February 27, 2009 at 9:35 PM
I wasn’t a Ron Paul supporter during the primary. Ron Paul is not conservative enough for me, but I have come to regard him as being more conservative than any of the major GOP primary contenders (with the possible exception of Fred Thompson).
His positions on foreign policy seem to be more in line with true conservatism than the interventionist foreign policies embraced by most administrations.
I am glad that the people of Iraq are free from the tyranny of Saddam, but America is not any safer from terrorist attacks because of it.
eaglescout1998 on February 27, 2009 at 9:36 PM
Tyrants abound in Iraq and particularly in Afghanistan. They are after all above all else Muslims who believe that Mohammad, a tyrant, was the “Perfect Man”.
MB4 on February 27, 2009 at 9:36 PM
ay yi yi — “but America is not any safer from terrorist attacks because of it.”
right, ’cause zarky and co. are still actively planning …
/hey, waaaaaaait a minute …
//a.p. must have known that the ronulans would be hunched over the computer screen on friday nite …
:-)
:-)
Buckaroo on February 27, 2009 at 9:38 PM
It’s a great sentiment, like other emotional quotes, but when you think about the practicality then it looses some of its charm. It’s great to be willing to die for your country, but I think it’s much more practical to be willing to kill for your country. Why would I want to fight on American soil when I can kill them just fine on their soil, and keep mine undamaged.
DFCtomm on February 27, 2009 at 9:39 PM
I used to like reading Hot Air, but wacko posts such as this one, Allapundit, really turn me off. Of course Ron Paul has it right in this case — unless we’re prepared to eradicate the border region between the Pakis and the Afghans [truly, not a bad idea], there is really no hope for the Afghan war. You Republicans have absolutely no clue.
Henry Bowman on February 27, 2009 at 9:40 PM
Still waiting for his snappy rEVOLution retort. Meanwhile, your response made me smirk. Very nice.
MadisonConservative on February 27, 2009 at 9:41 PM
France and the U.K. should be able to defend themselves. They aren’t exactly third-world countries.
We need to build up our country’s defenses, protect the border, I’d even agree on missile defense. If any country attacks us on our soil they would be nuked into oblivion. Come on, we’re the most powerful country in the world. Iran isn’t a real threat compared to the U.S. We have as many weapons as every country in the world put together.
The Dean on February 27, 2009 at 9:42 PM
He’s a sure vote for all things right and sacred but everytime he opens his mouth we cringe! In his last election he ran against Dan Mongiardo, our current Lieutenant Governor. He dropped the “Gee, my opponent looks like one of Saddam Hussein’s sons!” bomb. Mr. Mongiardo is of Italian ancestry.
He won the election by 1.4pts. I don’t think Bunning can win again especially if he is running against Ben Chandler, current 6th District Congressman.
Pilgrim on February 27, 2009 at 9:43 PM
Yahtzee!!!!
thomasaur on February 27, 2009 at 9:44 PM
Afghanistan is a quagmire why should this century be any different and Iraq will probably devolve into yet another pseudo islamic oil state like the others in the area, these facts may make President Bush wrong, but it won’t make Paul’s ignorance of Islam right.
DFCtomm on February 27, 2009 at 9:44 PM
You don’t even understand what I meant. France and the U.K. might very well be able to defend themselves from an outside force, but this force will be internal, and they are inviting it in, so no I doubt they will be able to defend themselves.
DFCtomm on February 27, 2009 at 9:47 PM
I disagree with the notion that our fight in Afghanistan can not be won. Britain and the Soviet Union were trying to conquer Afghanistan. We are not trying to do that.
I think Petraeus can make this happen with a similar approach he used in Iraq. Obviously the situations are quite different but the same basic problem exists. Radicals in both countries are keeping the regular folks from living their lives. As soon as the locals come to trust us they will start working with us. When that happens the rest is just time.
Our mission in Afghanistan is achievable.
Pilgrim on February 27, 2009 at 9:50 PM
You would think by this point Allahpundit would know the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. I find it really hard to take the criticisms of Ron Paul on this site seriously, especially some of the earlier ones which blasted him as a truther, but no less ones such as this.
But hey, you got me and others to post a comment. That’s really all this site is about, right? Right?
Rangeley on February 27, 2009 at 9:51 PM
The real test of our success is what happens after we leave, and I hope your right, I’m afraid your not, but I sincerely hope you are.
DFCtomm on February 27, 2009 at 9:53 PM
Our armament has prevented major power war, but we have to defend now against different types of attacks. Like it or not, cultural intervention may be a part of defense now.
Spirit of 1776 on February 27, 2009 at 9:54 PM
The horsemen idea was worth a chuckle. Nice.
Spirit of 1776 on February 27, 2009 at 9:55 PM
But, the nature of war these days is no longer a fight between nation states. We saw what can happen when we fight a conventional war against unconventional opponents in Iraq before the surge. All the enemy has to do is continue low level attacks, blame the inevitable deaths of innocents on the evil Americans, and allow the American left and world media to do their jobs. It becomes a waiting game. The enemy learned that lesson from the Viet Cong and learned it well.
Now, if you are seriously willing to turn the major oil producing nations of the world into oily glass factories then allow Hezbollah to sneak an Iranian made nuke into Israel. That is the end game of the “Iran is not a threat” discussion.
Pilgrim on February 27, 2009 at 9:56 PM
I don’t know, AP. There’s a lot to be said for a more isolationist US. We’ve got the means to be self-sufficient, and if we took advantage of our geographical advantages and superior government system, we could do quite well without the rest of the world. They need us more than we need them, and they hardly offer us any thanks.
Sign of the Dollar on February 27, 2009 at 9:57 PM
Well that would be great, for those Americans who are not sent off “nation building” in Iraq or Afghanistan anyway, but they are not necessarily going to play by your rules of engagement.
MB4 on February 27, 2009 at 9:58 PM
Well, I think we’re at the point where many more conservatives are starting to see that Paul’s platform is the best way forward, and that the current Republican mainstream is absurd and just doesn’t work (see the last 8 years). No-one wants to admit it, but I think we’re working our way towards this slowly but surely.
Of course then there are the hawks like the authors here who get their rocks off to our sons and daughters getting killed in the Middle East.
The Dean on February 27, 2009 at 9:58 PM
That’s right. The Afghans have to hold up their end of the bargain just like Maliki and his countrymen. I have a better feeling about Iraq than Afghanistan in the long run. At least Iraq has SOME peaceful history to look to and draw from.
I am convinced we can leave the Afghanistan people with a peaceful country and means to defend it. After that, it’s up to them.
Heh…at least if it falls apart they can jump on the “Blame Bush” wagon which will be making it’s reunion tour. ;)
Pilgrim on February 27, 2009 at 9:59 PM
That’s pretty damned offensive friend.
Pilgrim on February 27, 2009 at 10:02 PM
A great country worthy of the name does not have any friends.
- Charles De Gaulle
MB4 on February 27, 2009 at 10:02 PM
I’m sorry, but every person I know who supported Paul is — to put it bluntly — “weird”. In an earlier era they would have been ex-Confederates pining for the Lost Cause. Now they pine for Paul’s vision of states’ rights and his rather interesting interpretation of the Constitution.
In fact, they remind me, in their unreserved adulation of Paul, of the much larger group of fawning Obama admirers.
As for me, I have read enough of Paul’s newsletters to know I want no part of him.
unclesmrgol on February 27, 2009 at 10:02 PM
I have to laugh at all the money we spend on foreign aid (ie. the tsunami of 2004) and yet, when disaster strikes here, we’re on our own. Did we receive any foreign aid for Katrina victims?
eaglescout1998 on February 27, 2009 at 10:03 PM
To those who think theres a culture war going on in the middle east, I think you are pretty right on. But we see how inefficient government is here at home in “engineering culture,” and even object to it not only because its not the proper role of government, but even the most well intentioned government program comes with a lot of unintended consequences.
Apply it on a global level, and even operations that are launched out of a purely benevolent desire to help others can unintentionally, as all government programs do, cause bad things to happen.
That is one of the reasons nation building has frequently been decried (historically) by conservatives, including George W. Bush in 2000. He wasn’t a “blame America first” politician by any means – he was simply one of many who recognized the danger of a government that shows up and says “I’m here to help.” That his actions as president were not consistent with this is unfortunate, but it is no less true today in a post 9-11 world.
Rangeley on February 27, 2009 at 10:03 PM
And who is Charles DeGaulle? Oh yeah, a FRENCHMEN! ;)
Pilgrim on February 27, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Tell the truth, AP….
This post was just to smoke out the new crowd of Ronulans who recently registered, so we can shun them.
Well played, sir. Well played. Like moths to a flame, I tell you.
JohnTant on February 27, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Win the ‘trust’ of people who hate us? What?
Having routed the Taliban, liberated millions, midwived a (Sharia-supreme) constitution, assisted in elections, propped up a government and routed the Taliban some more, all the United States needs now to win victory in Afghanistan is to win the “trust” of the Afghan people.
So, cockamamiely, wrote Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, in a column appearing in the Washington Post just days before President Obama ordered 17,000 new troops to Afghanistan, nearly doubling the American presence there.
The president’s top military adviser explained the policy this way: “We have learned, after seven years of war, that trust is the coin of the realm — that building it takes time, losing it take mere seconds, and maintaining it may be our most important and most difficult objective.”
Sorry, admiral, but if that is what we have “learned” in a war that has claimed more than 600 American lives, wounded and maimed thousands more, and cost billions of pre-bailout dollars, we are practically done for.
Thus, Mullen blames the Afghan failure to hail the United States as the conquering hero on a purely American failure to maintain Afghan “trust” — an unfair rap, frankly, on dedicated troops stretched thin by far too many years of deployment. Indeed, Mullen broaches the “trust” topic with a distasteful allusion to Pleminius, a Roman tyrant, who became notorious for his and his soldier’s raping, pillaging and plundering of the Locrians, who expected and ultimately received restitution from Rome.
“We are not Romans, of course,” Mullen writes.
Gee, thanks a lot.
He adds: “You cannot defeat an insurgency this way.”
Oh yeah? Betcha could if the “civilians” he’s talking about loathed the “insurgents” he’s talking about more than the “us” he’s talking about.
MB4 on February 27, 2009 at 10:10 PM
There is a lot to address in this, unclesmrgol, but first I would like to say that there are many weird people in politics. If you have attended your state’s convention, or even more local functions, you are bound to run into characters with varying level of “endearing” to them. From the people I have met in person, Ron Paul supporters tend to be less polished and newer to politics, but no more or less weird on the whole.
As for the newsletters, it was a lapse in his judgement to allow his name to be associated with a newsletter he no longer (after he left public office) monitored. That was when the racist material was published – a message which I trust you will find is inconsistent with everything he has ever talked about. He took moral responsibility for the material being published under his name, and strongly condemned the material within it. I don’t know that you can ask for much more than that.
And for his view of the constitution, what of his interpretation do you think is weird?
Rangeley on February 27, 2009 at 10:12 PM
I’m sure he does, although in today’s world, its irrelevant. Paul and his ilk belong back the 20s, when isolationism was chic and the world wasn’t anywhere near as involved geopolitically that they are today. We are in a global mindset, worldwide. It’s currently impossible to withdraw from that approach without it being a gigantic signal of weakness.
I would add that talking about “non-interventionism” while anti-semitism is rising(and frankly, there are few Ronulans I’ve talked to who aren’t in favor of that sentiment), fascism is rearing its ugly head throughout the Middle East and spreading across Europe with alarming speed, and global depression is hitting our times, is willful ignorance of a very deadly recipe. It won’t be long before populations are deported once again. The question is whether we will rise once again in the name of justice and freedom, or if we’re going to close up and try to sustain our crumbling republic, whose lifelines are tied to nations throughout the world, some of which will fall if they are challenged without our help.
You dismissive attitude of countries like Iran is dangerous to say the least. We’re talking about a nation that is likely less than a decade away from serious collapse, ruled by armaggeddon-lusting religious fanatics who think that wiping out as many infidels as possible will bring back their god, and yes, they have nukes.
MadisonConservative on February 27, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing. When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it!
- From Not-a-FRENCHMEN! (but a “Mystery Guest for the evening);)
MB4 on February 27, 2009 at 10:16 PM
Hey thanks
Ralph NaderRon Paul for siphoning off those votes that should have put Romney in the gubmint housing instead of the ‘magic negro’ you putz.GlocknRoll on February 27, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Ron Paul can be summed up in thusly:
House offers statement of support to Israel. Paul declines, says not Constitutional to make non-legislative gestures.
House offers statement of congratulations to NFL team. Paul signs. Apparently the principles didn’t apply there (or more like there were no Joooooos on the team).
Spirit of 1776 on February 27, 2009 at 10:27 PM
The difference isn’t irrelevant – your criticisms are of isolationism, not non-interventionism. You are absolutely right that the world is more global than it ever has been before. The world economy is more integrated than ever, nations can no longer simply rely on their own domestic industries. An isolationist would say “tough” and blast ahead with tariffs, protectionism, stop talking to others and pretend the world didn’t exist.
But a non-interventionism wouldn’t. They would destroy barriers to trade, further opening the world markets. They wouldn’t have tariffs, and they wouldn’t subsidize domestic industries either. And they most certainly wouldn’t pretend the world doesn’t exist. But they wouldn’t pretend that the government is the solution to anti-semetism in Iraq, any more than it is the solution to anti-semetism here at home.
It wasn’t government programs like affirmative action which helped fight racism here at home – it was brave individuals like Martin Luther King and other earlier civil rights leaders who helped change public opinion over time. Programs like affirmative action, while “well intentioned,” actually stir up more racial resentment.
Guess what – wars entail death and destruction, like it or not. Even wars waged for “nation building.” Death and destruction doesn’t lend itself well to fostering an end to hate. “Well intentioned” government meddling abroad comes with the same problems meddling here at home brings. Being a non-interventionist means you oppose this sort of nation building. Whereas an isolationist would prevent the private sector, and peaceful means of helping to fight terrible attitudes like anti-semetism, a non-interventionist simply wants the federal government out of doing a job they simply aren’t good at.
Rangeley on February 27, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose and you allow him to make war at pleasure.
- “Mystery Guest” Number Two
MB4 on February 27, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Just to save time I’m going to issue a blanket -1 to everything The Dean has said or is going to say.
FloatingRock on February 27, 2009 at 10:31 PM
War is at best barbarism. Its glory is all moonshine. War is hell.
- William Tecumseh Sherman
MB4 on February 27, 2009 at 10:32 PM
Which is why Paulbots should NEVER state the Israel is disproportionate in response[s].
Spirit of 1776 on February 27, 2009 at 10:33 PM
I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast.
- William Tecumseh Sherman
MB4 on February 27, 2009 at 10:36 PM
I don’t see how Ron Paul is able to walk since his feet seem glued inside his mouth.
Percy_Peabody on February 27, 2009 at 10:38 PM
That death comes with war is not an excuse for the death that comes with war, it’s just a statement of fact. My point wasn’t to excuse it, but to say that death and destruction don’t lend themselves to ending hate.
Rangeley on February 27, 2009 at 10:39 PM
You intrique me, Ron Paul, and I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter.
*reads newsletter*
OH DEAR GOD!!!1!
Kensington on February 27, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Ron Paul should offer up a bill to have the treasury give every US citizen one million paper dollars. It would be funny watching the liberals try to explain why this would be a bad idea.
Buddahpundit on February 27, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »