Ron Paul on Iranian nuke site: I’m tired of all this military-industrial fearmongering
posted at 9:01 pm on September 26, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
As contemptible as this is, I’ve got two good reasons to spare you a harangue about it. One: I’ve already written that harangue, and after the summer coup in Tehran and another year of cheat-and-retreat on their nuclear program, it’s truer now than it was then. And two: Thankfully, this old crank’s isolationist denialism is so fringe on the right that not even mainstreamers who are sympathetic to his broader agenda, like Glenn Beck, will go near it. It’s almost not worth bothering about. But suffice it to say, in the unlikely event that the three-percent rEVOLution ever commands the foreign-policy agenda of the GOP, I’ll run — not walk — into the Blue Dogs’ arms.
As Paul spoke passionately about ending all military operations and keeping government out of people’s “lifestyles,” a lone heckler began to shout, “Tell her!” Bachmann remained serene, hands folded in her lap, facing Paul. Bringing up Obama’s announcement that Iran had secret underground nuclear facilities, Paul announced that he had had enough of “fear-mongering” for the sake of the “military-industrial complex.” Bachmann, who once advocated nuking Iran, kept her eyes trained on Paul as her heckler repeated, “Tell her! Tell Michele! Tell her!”
A few more choice quotes from Think Progress:
We should never go to war if they’re telling us a lie about what’s happening. … We took the position, over my strong objection, we took the position that we had to have regime change in Iraq.
What they’re getting ready to do is put very, very strong sanctions on Iran. … But sanctions, and blockades, and prevention like this is an act of war.
I’m not sure what “lie” it is we’re being told about Iran, but then this is a guy so eager to see American “lies” at work vis-a-vis enemy powers that he’s been known to accuse the feds preemptively of telling them. Anyway, the point to take away about his Iran shtick is that it’s not an argument about strategy, i.e. “They’re a threat but non-intervention is the best way to stop them.” It’s an argument about facts, i.e. “There is no threat,” which it has to be because once he admits that Iran is dangerous his isolationist “solution” becomes impossible to sell. In that sense he reminds me of opponents of waterboarding, forced to insist that coercive interrogation never ever works because once they admit that it does, their absolutist opposition is politically dead on arrival. Conservatives complain frequently about Paul’s penchant for blaming America — and here, too, in the blockquote above, he’s already laying the groundwork to say “we started it” if and when Iran tries something — but his foreign policy, such as it is, leaves him with no other choice. The only way isolationism works is if literally any form of intervention against an enemy is morally wrong and just cause for disproportionate reprisal. Which is another way of saying it doesn’t work. Happy viewing.
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: « Previous 1 ... 6 7 8 9 Next »
Gee, you’re right. I had no idea I was a brainwashed ignorant neocon free-speech-hater unpatriotic tool until you so kindly pointed it out. I have now seen the error of my ways. Ron Paul is a super-genius and god on earth, full of benevolent wisdom and clear thinking. If only he were president, then his isolationist policies would magically turn back nuclear missiles and take us back to the glory days before those pesky
Jewsneocons got hold of the media. If only.TheQuestion on September 27, 2009 at 6:42 PM
Uh, would you care to elaborate?
Tomblvd on September 27, 2009 at 6:43 PM
These conspiracy theories continue to destroy the Paul movement despite Paul himself not advocating any of it.
*sigh*
Spathi on September 27, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Actually, we aren’t blasting Paul because the media hates him — we are blasting him in spite of it.
unclesmrgol on September 27, 2009 at 6:48 PM
We, paleface?
unclesmrgol on September 27, 2009 at 6:51 PM
When you constantly hang out with Truthers like, say, Alex Jones, and argue all sorts of Truthery things, it makes sense that people might think you’re a conspiracy theorist. Like Paul very likely is.
TheQuestion on September 27, 2009 at 6:53 PM
Barack thinks that Iras is a dumb war. He’s the Commander in Chief.
Obama opposing the Iraq war.
Do you consider him on “your” side?
Spathi on September 27, 2009 at 6:55 PM
TheQuestion,
Paul doesn’t refuse interviews though with a few very noted exceptions.
I’ve seen him do 30 interviews a day at times. He just has a schedule and he jumps on for his 5 minutes and gets off.
It’s a good shotgun approach to get your message out. He goes on a lot of obscure liberals shows too that you probably never noticed.
Spathi on September 27, 2009 at 6:57 PM
The Yankees win.
THE YAAAAANNNKEEESSSS WIN!!
Ahhhhh. The yankees clinch the AL East. The eagles win without Donovan McNabb. Tim Tebow is all right.
Other than the Detroit Lions winning, all is right with the world.
Now where we?
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 7:02 PM
I’m curious. If Paul has no problem appearing on Alex Jones’s show, or other liberal shows like you mentioned? Is there any show Paul wouldn’t go on? If, say, Osama Bin Laden had a radio show, would Paul do an interview there?
TheQuestion on September 27, 2009 at 7:05 PM
er, POT.KETTLE.BLACK
Firefly_76 on September 27, 2009 at 7:08 PM
OK, JohnGalt23. I was almost sympathetic until I learned you were a Yankees fan. sheesh.
Firefly_76 on September 27, 2009 at 7:09 PM
No, I consider him to be on your side with respect to foreign policy.
unclesmrgol on September 27, 2009 at 7:09 PM
No. for better or worse, we are dependent on foreign capital to finance chronic fiscal deficits. Either that, or we must stop running those deficits.
But a mercantile economy would demand not only that we not accept outside capital, but that we do not run current account deficits, and that we use massive government intervention through tariffs and other trade barriers to ensure that. Further, it would insist on state action through military force to keep markets for raw materials open and prices artificially depressed.
I reject such thinking. It is an economic model that led to the rise (and thus eventual fall) of empires, something our nation was designed not to be.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 7:12 PM
I assume he has his limits. Didn’t you see the newest Bruno film?
Spathi on September 27, 2009 at 7:13 PM
Come back to reality man.
NOBODY is going to send nuclear missles at us. They KNOW they would be nuked ten times over. Nobody has the capacity to block that many missles and they know that.
You people truly are crazy paranoiacs who buy whatever lies the military industrial complex neocons tell you.
MaximusConfessor on September 27, 2009 at 7:14 PM
Paul post-interview about the Bruno interview
Spathi on September 27, 2009 at 7:15 PM
BTW good luck cutting back those gigantic military spending budgets..
Those military industrial complex neocons will fake an attack and it will be back to business as usual for them but with a hugely increased budget.
You people just don’t get it.
Ron Paul is a true American patriot who is trying to help our country and you just buy the garbage propaganda the traitorous foreign owned media tells you and you oppose him.
You’re like lemmings running off a cliff one after another, no thought necessary. Typical brainwashed Americans. Too busy being brainwashed watching American idol to bother finding out what is going on and too relativist to care anyway.
MaximusConfessor on September 27, 2009 at 7:27 PM
I’m sure I, like many others on here, are just dying to know: who exactly are these foreigners that own our media? Could they be….Joooooooooos?
TheQuestion on September 27, 2009 at 7:36 PM
No, actually, I didn’t. I did hear about that incident, though. Funny.
TheQuestion on September 27, 2009 at 7:39 PM
You hate us.
Yet, you post here.
massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 7:40 PM
Nope. Wouldn’t watch it if naked redheads previewed it at my house, with free Knob Creek in chilled glasses.
massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Allow me to help. You stated:
I then pointed out your fallacy:
You then moved the goalposts:
To which I replied:
You were then last seen frantically speeding away in a strange motorized goalpost-shaped contraption:
Do you have a motor for those goalposts, Galt? Because the amount you move them, you need it.
So now train bombings count? You didn’t say that before.
You said “COMPLETELY IGNORE”. None of those “peaceful” countries were ignored.
Now what is it?
Incidentally, after the Spanish capitulated to the islamists and removed their troops from the ME, there was a train bombing!
Why would the islamists do that? The Spanish were doing just as they were told!
Why don’t you just admit you were wrong, Galt?
________________________________
Well, why?
Tomblvd on September 27, 2009 at 7:46 PM
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Lock Paul in a room with John Bolton for a week, and he might change his mind of foreign policy, and facial hair.
DFCtomm on September 27, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Absolute nonsense.
The problem is with the American foreign policy community who will not unleash Israel, as a condition of continued US support.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 7:59 PM
And yet it was this very same government that, faced with being overrun by Iraq, cut a deal with the alleged “Great Satan” for advanced arms that arguably saved their regime.
Sounds like a rational actor to me.
I’ll go you one further. Something must change within Islam. Short of war, Iran is going to get nuclear weapons. And then Saudi Arabia will get nuclear weapons. And then Syria will get nuclear weapons.
And with Islam’s tolerance for death cults like al Qaeda, and their willingness to use terrorist clients like Hezbollah, at some point one of those bombs is going to go off. We keep playing the hegemon there, and we keep increasing the chances that the first one goes off here. But even if we were as non-intervetionist as Dr. Paul would like, that doesn’t absolutely guarantee that we won’t be the first… it just decreases the likelihood.
So, Islam has to change. The problem is, we’re not going to change them through war. Contrary to what some have said here, it was not WWI that liberalized Turkey. Turkey was starting to liberalize before that, and while Turkey did in fact further liberalize as the result of the war, most of the rest of the Ottoman Empire got a lot worse.
The question then remains… what to do about Islam?
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Not just in Israel.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Spoken like a Red Sox fan.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 8:13 PM
So speaks she who claims that Barack Obama, who is calling for a world system of governance of finacial institutions, is an isolationist.
Once again, Private Pyle, you’ve got to be sh**ting me!!
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 8:15 PM
If Denninger is right our immigration issues will probably be taken care of by our economic collapse. See, every cloud has a silver lining.
DFCtomm on September 27, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Right-thinking conservatives should be ashamed that we have you on our side.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 8:17 PM
he types as he continues to ignore the multiple posts…….
Tomblvd on September 27, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Natural human reaction, not pretty but natural. You might as well fight the tides.
DFCtomm on September 27, 2009 at 8:22 PM
Hmmmmm.
Naked redheads?????
Hmmmmmmmmmm….
OK, you’re right. Not even then.
But it’s close.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Just a yardstick, to show that I have standards.
massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 8:28 PM
With this one exception…
I respond to posts worth responding to.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Knob Creek… that is GOOD STUFF!!
Khun Joe on September 27, 2009 at 8:33 PM
LOL. Or posts you can respond to.
Anybody can read the recap at 7:46 and see your blatant dishonesty. You made a ridiculous statement and got called on it and then spent numerous posts trying to weasel your way out of it instead of doing the honorable thing and admitting you were wrong.
But then again if you admitted you were wrong, you would lose one of the most important planks of the Ron Paul isolationist agenda; “If you don’t bother them they won’t bother you.”
Tomblvd on September 27, 2009 at 8:34 PM
You rely on a deterrence built by the so-called “military-industrial complex”. Amusing.
unclesmrgol on September 27, 2009 at 8:53 PM
Link please?
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 8:56 PM
It’s not a “deterrence” it’s a curse.
They created them and they are nothing but a curse. This has already been proven.
If they had never been created it would be a different story.
Again who is at fault?
MaximusConfessor on September 27, 2009 at 8:58 PM
Link?
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 9:05 PM
I’d suspect the Carlyle Group, and the Bush family, going back at least 3 generations.
massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 9:11 PM
My profuse apologies, Spain removed their troops after the train bombings, not before.
Tomblvd on September 27, 2009 at 9:11 PM
See how easy that is?
Tomblvd on September 27, 2009 at 9:12 PM
Thus you prove the point, there will be no peace with the palis and Islamists so long as Israel exists. And it is not “my scenario”, it is the position of the palis and Islamists. With that as the basis, Israel is left with only the options of destroying its enemies or being destroyed. There can be no negotiation and no peace with the palis and Islamists.
ray on September 27, 2009 at 9:17 PM
Looks like Killgore Trout is turning tricks again for charley.
ray on September 27, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Nope. Jenfidel’s a good poster here, whose passions often inflame her rhetoric.
Wrong? Sometimes. Passionate? Always. But, a CJ plant? Never.
massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 9:23 PM
Cue Jeopardy theme…..
Tomblvd on September 27, 2009 at 9:24 PM
Thank you for the background. If Jenfidel is a good poster, that must be her absolute worst post by a good margin. Very insulting and in very poor taste.
ray on September 27, 2009 at 9:27 PM
To be wrong? It’s easy if you try.
Fact is that in Switzerland, Japan, and Sweden, if someone has died as a result of al Qaeda terror bombings, I can’t find it. There are a lot of bombings, so I might have missed them. But if they’re there, they are few and far between.
Contrast that with the US, or other nations, primarily but not exclusively NATO, that have followed us into Iraq or Afghanistan. The Spanish lost a couple of hundred. The Brits a few score. The Aussies (who were the targets in Indonesia in both the 2002 and 2005 bombings) lost a couple of hundred, after making clear they were committed with the US on Iraq.
Now, I’ll grant you there are countries that, regardless of their posture on the ME, will suffer terror bombings. The Philippines, India, and Thailand (and Spain, in a unique situation, having to face both external and internal Islamic bombers) come to mind. But as far as I can tell, those bombings come from groups not committed to global jihad, but rather to separatist movements. Once again, there may be exceptions, but they are few and far between. Either way, it isn’t applicable to the US, as we don’t have an Islamic separatist movement.
So where does that leave us? Countries committed to intervention in the ME… Britain, Australia, Spain… have suffered from spectacular bombings. Countries that don’t… Switzerland, Japan, Sweden… have few, if any, victims of islamic terrorism.
Then you have the US, which has led the way of intervention, and… surprise, surprise… has suffered far and away the worst of western nations. 3000 on 9/11, plus hundreds from Khobar, Tanzania, Dar es Salaam, the Cole, plus a lot of others I’m sure I’ve forgotten.
Draw a diagram, with victims of Islamic terror on one axis, and commitment to ME intervention of the other, and you’ll find a very strong correlation… far stronger than victims vs. wealth, victims vs. liberal political philosophy, or victims vs. strength of Christian faith.
Does that tell you nothing?
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 9:36 PM
Sorry, Ray – wasn’t arguing the rightness of her position, or necessarily in defense of that post.
massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Explain quantity “Kilgore Trout”?
Other than a character in a Vonnegut novel, of course.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 9:39 PM
No problem, I understand you were only pointing out to me she was a regular and not a troll, and I appreciate it. Thanks.
ray on September 27, 2009 at 9:39 PM
A talking barnacle on the backside of a madman.
ray on September 27, 2009 at 9:41 PM
@ JohnGalt23. You seem to be arguing two separate cause-effect theories for terrorist attacks against the US/allies. On the one hand, you argue that it is a direct result of interventionism. On the other hand, you suggest that Islam itself needs to be reformed. If the latter, then doesn’t that weaken your argument on interventionism?
Perhaps the two issues are not mutually exclusive but can be reinforcing. But I haven’t seen you suggest this.
Firefly_76 on September 27, 2009 at 9:43 PM
This is ridiculously simple. Correlation does not equal causation. This may help you: http://www.scribd.com/doc/193949/Introduction-to-the-Practice-of-Basic-Statistics-Textbook-Outline
ray on September 27, 2009 at 9:45 PM
Not really. Iran was never in danger of being overrun by Iraq and the Iran-Contra affair as I understand never went to the highest levels of the Iranian government. For all we know Khomeini was never aware of the arms deal. What does it change anyway? That Iran can be pragmatic? That is no indicator of rationality, just that they can bend ideology for the ‘greater good’ of that ideology. It is not unheard of.
I do not know. But let us not take the focus off of Iran. They are the principal actor in the Middle East right now. A secular Iranian republic would spell the end of Hizbollah as they can not survive without the current regime. Countless other Islamist organizations are on a life-line tied to the current Iranian regime. Cut the life-line and they are no longer able to strike the US. We should look at this one step at a time, and try not to get ahead of ourselves.
Shogun144 on September 27, 2009 at 9:53 PM
That’s true. But you should at least have an alternate theory to explain away the correlation.
And frankly, from the interventionist side, the two explanations I get most of the time are “They hate us for our freedom”, and “Show me an innocent Arab and I’ll show you a suicide bomber who can’t get his detenator to work”.
And those don’t pass the laugh test.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 9:56 PM
quoted for truth. Neocons simply ignore logic when they start fearmongering
popularpeoplesfront on September 27, 2009 at 9:57 PM
Folks are still arguing with the Ronbots?
Fact is, Ron Paul is one of, if not the biggest, liars that ever set foot in congress. He knows full well he’ll never in a million years win the republican nomination or become president, he’s just feeding his ego and bank account on the backs of these kool-aid drinkers.
How he must laugh at them, spouting all his fiscal and small government rhetoric while he slops at the pork barrel for hundreds of millions of taxpayers cash every year. How he lied about being a conservative hawk to get elected, then secured his seat by lining the pockets of special interests, some people are real rubes.
If they can’t see the plain evidence that Ron Paul is a con man, flat out telling the most ridiculous lies straight to their faces while enriching himself and his family, logic facts and persuasion has no chance.
To them, it will always be one more “money bomb” to the buggy-whip and powered wig utopia they dream of, while Paul laughs all the way to the bank.
Rebar on September 27, 2009 at 9:58 PM
I think it’s time we all acknowledge that the neo-con outlook,premptive war,eliminating another nations enemies for them (because of faulty intelligence provided by these other nations insiders in our political system),wars for resources and our blind unwavering support of israel(regardless of their treatment of the palestinian Christians) have destroyed ALL of the republican party’s credibility and has created innumerable enemies for us throughout the world. It is time now to acknowledge this,acknowledge it DOESN’T WORK and go back to the traditional republican outlook:
Non interventionism,simplification of the system,removal of the fraudulent federal reserve and other traditional republican positions.
We should not have dual citzens in congress and senate and other positions in government. We should not allow foreign or dual citizen owned conglomerations of media networks. We should monitor and screen politicians who run for office and make sure that they do not have obvious blackmail material in their personal lives to our best ability.
We need to ensure the viability of the electoral process and we cannot do this with a corrupt media run amuk.
We need to remove and replace the corrupt supreme court justices and undo the unconstitutional legislature that they have passed that unconstitutionally promotes atheism and attempts to seperate Christianity from all forms of public life whether it be government schools etc.
We need to recognize that we are a Christian nation with a majority Christian population and embrace that. Not make it illegal.
We need to promote decency standards within television and film and we need to allow school vouchers and allow Christianity to be taught in our schools,not continue the practice of shunning it and attempting to illegalize it.We need to illegalize murder(the abortion genocide) and we need to stop promoting sexual deviance sodomy and finally illegalize gay marriage.
i know this may be hard for some of you to hear but this is the truth and these are all vital things that we need to do. If we do not do these things we will surely fall as a nation due to our own decadence and corruption.
MaximusConfessor on September 27, 2009 at 10:05 PM
I don’t need a theory, it’s not my argument.
But I will take a swing at it for fun. Why do Islamists attack those with wealth, power, and differing beliefs? A combination of paraphrases from what Sutton gave for robbing banks, and the story of the scorpion and frog. Because that’s where the money and power is, and it is the nature of someone trained to hate and kill to hate and kill. There are camps all over the middle east where evil men brainwash young men and train them to hate and kill all others. Take out the evil men and camps, you take out a root source and cause of Islamist violence.
ray on September 27, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Nice job throwing the accelerant on the smoldering ashes. That might get some more flames going again so we can finish off the bag of marshmallows.
ray on September 27, 2009 at 10:11 PM
No, Ronbots won’t respond to posts when the facts of Paul’s breathtaking hypocrisy is exposed.
Selective vision and thinking is one of the requirements to join the cult.
Rebar on September 27, 2009 at 10:17 PM
headdesk
The point which apparently went way over your head is that we are not fighting a ‘war’, we’re doing the military equivalent of Mr. Rogers. This Hearts-and-Minds claptrap is an absurd fabrication of people who’ve forgotten the basic formula for winning armed conflict ever since weapons technology consisted of clubs; beat the living daylights out of your opponent, obtain unconditional surrender, and then (should you desire) begin reconstruction.
As far as I can see, we’re fighting ‘terrorists’, a designation that is as freaking elastic as Silly Putty.
Saddam is gone and dead as are the two hellspawn he called sons, his ‘army’ of bully-boy camel jockeys has been smashed, and the WMD’s have all been found, photographed, and destroyed. Oh wait…scratch that last one.
Dark-Star on September 27, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Sura 9.5 and Sura 9.29 are good starts
the goal of a Global Caliphate and Global Sharia Law
this war is 1300 yrs old
jp on September 27, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Somebody’s been in the whiskey jug a few times too many.
That kind of moronic blanket statement should earn you some kind of reward for being a brainless tool.
Dark-Star on September 27, 2009 at 10:26 PM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/12/ron-paul-and-john-stossel-a-feast-of-wrong-assumptions.html
jp on September 27, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Oh, I definitely think they are not mutually exclusive.
Wahhabism, or even more generally radical Islam, is not a unitary actor; that is, there are different factions, different strains, different levels of intensity, all of which result in different goals. For example, contrast Hezbollah, Hamas, and al Qaeda. Hamas, IMHO, is only concerned with Israel. If Israel didn’t exist, neither would Hamas. Hezbollah exists to serve the interests of its Iranian masters. If you don’t cross Iran, you probably won’t have a problem with Hezbollah. Al Qaeda is a death cult, sworn to the sovereignty of Allah and the protection of his holy land. I think Hezbollah and Hamas are fairly rational actors, while al Qaeda is clearly less so.
I’ve said that completely swearing off intervention doesn’t guarantee that you won’t get bombed. But I do hold that not interfering in ME affairs drastically cuts your chance of being bombed. Once again, take a look at the numbers. We lead the interventionists, and we lead in the body counts. There are other factors, most notably proper defensive security, proximity to Islamic strongholds, and others. But it sure looks like participation in ME affairs is the dominant variable.
But to be fair, when some of these people are members of a death cult like al Qaeda, you never know. One of them might get a bug up their ass to bomb New York, or even Zurich, and all you can do is try to stop them.
Now, that being said, given what I consider to be a certainty that Iran will soon have nuclear weapons, and soon to be followed by Saudi Arabia and Syria, we have to ask ourselves what is the best path to follow.
1) Do we go to war in Iran? Success there would most likely preempt them going nuclear? But this path is fraught with risks. I mentioned one earlier, about what if China sides with them. There are myriad other problems. The most serious, IMHO, is what if they already have nuclear weapons, and we don’t know it? That could mean Hezbollah detonating a nuke in NYC, and all of a sudden the ugly dial has been turned up to eleven.
2) Do we allow Iran to have nukes, and continue intervening in ME affairs? In this case, I think it is very unlikely that Iran hands off a nuke to a client terrorist for use against the US, but as Arab states would eventually have nukes, the chance that al Qaeda gets a hold of one becomes very real. If we are seen as poking our nose where it does not belong, then it seems at least somewhat likely that they would seek to use any bomb they could get on the US, although they might prefer to use it on Israel, depending on opinions of those in the power structure.
3) Do we withdraw from the ME? Doing so would greatly lessen the chance that any use of nuclear weapons acquired from Arab states would be used in the US, although it does not completely eliminate it. Furthermore, without Western military presence there, there would be less radicalization of young Muslims, as the ME states would have less opportunity to blame the US for their ills.
Now, under none of these scenarios is the US completely safe. But under withdrawal, we don’t have to worry about Hamas or Hezbollah detonating a nuke in NYC, and it lessens the likelihood of al Qaeda or another death cult doing so.
Now, in order to bring the chance of a nuclear event close to zero, Islam needs to be changed. It needs to be able to, on its own, make death cults simply unacceptable.
The problem is that we are incapable of doing that through force of arms. If anything, by deploying armies to the ME, we make the job of liberalizing Islam more difficult, not more attainable. In short, we can’t kill our way out of this problem, and attempting to do so only makes it worse.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 10:32 PM
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 10:37 PM
24K Gold.
- If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting.
LeMay, Curtis.
…..
That little truth aside, you are right in a roundabout way. Even if there was a sudden mass urge for young people to sign on the dotted line, our leaders (and most of the populace) haven’t the will or spine for such a campaign, our press is a bunch of backstabbing hacks and our economy is in the process of disintegrating.
Dark-Star on September 27, 2009 at 10:44 PM
It will make no difference what we do, authoritarians will always create some reason to blame external agents to support their internal and external militaristic actions. You seem to think they are rational actors who share the same objectives as yourself. They do not, so they will not act they way you desire no matter what you say or do. There is nothing you can do to stop them, short of using force. The end. Seriously, go spend some time over there and educate yourself in their reality.
ray on September 27, 2009 at 10:52 PM
I disagree. Pragmatism, as the antithesis of ideology, is at least an indicator of rational action.
There’s no doubt that Iran is the big dog in the ME. And yes, the downfall of the Islamic Republic, and its replacement with a secular government is the optimal outcome in the foreseeable future.
The problem I see is that, short of war, they will acquire a nuclear weapon, and that our troops in the region make liberalization more difficult, not easier.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 10:53 PM
They don’t have to share my objectives in order to be rational actors, and thus have an optimal outcome gamed out.
Just out of curiosity, how many do we have to kill before we can declare victory? I don’t need exact numbers. Just a rough estimate… infantry battle… strategic bombing… massive thermonuclear strikes?
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 11:09 PM
<blockquoteNo, Ronbots won’t respond to posts when the facts of Paul’s breathtaking hypocrisy is exposed.
Selective vision and thinking is one of the requirements to join the cult.
Rebar on September 27, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Well put.
nelsonknows on September 27, 2009 at 11:10 PM
<blockquoteMaximusConfessor on September 27, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Ron Paul is a FRAUD which makes anyone stupid enough to follow Paul also a FRAUD.
nelsonknows on September 27, 2009 at 11:13 PM
JohnGalt23,
Let us agree to disagree in regards to pragmatism, as I have seen too many and read of too many instances of irrational men making pragmatic deals and choices to see it otherwise.
On your second point: I think we can agree that war with Iran is not advisable and that a nuclear Iran is not desirable. But if Iran is really as rational as you claim then they would see that such a move would provoke Israel. A rational assessment would conclude that a war with Israel would go very badly for Iran militarily. Why risk it?
Shogun144 on September 27, 2009 at 11:18 PM
The optimal outcome for the rulers of Iran is control over the entire Islamic world. If that is ok with the government of the USA, apparently that is what they will get. Surely nothing bad will happen from that…
pffffftttt, that’s a silly game and a complete non sequitur. Thanks for the giggle.
ray on September 27, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Ron Paul looks just like the head of the Heaven’s Gate cult. Creepy.
One wonders when he will call his legions to go on that eternal journey with him on the mother ship.
Really Right on September 27, 2009 at 11:21 PM
A couple observations on this debate:
I hope you don’t want to right all the historical wrongs, like giving the Southwest back to Mexico, or the continent back to the Indians? Someone else mentioned that our common God gave the land to Israel, I have perfect faith that He can keep it theirs without us starting a world war.
Possibly the most racist comment in this thread.
In Grenada our troops rescued 1000 medical students,
stayed about 6 weeks, Oct.25 to Dec. The next year Grenada held elections. They built memorials to the fallen Cubans.
In Beirut we sent peacekeepers to rescue the PLO from Israel when the Hawks demanded we ‘do something’. Resulting in 241 fine men dead and a pull out. Reagan described sending Marines to Lebanon as ‘The worst mistake of his presidency’ in his diary.
Submarines, ICBM’s and nukes are reality. An Obama world prohibition is a fantasy as the power gained provides huge incentives to cheat. For example chem and bio weapons are banned, yet even we have programs making them today.
Agression by Iran should be opposed, aggression by us will be opposed. Making peace has a much greater chance of preventing a tragedy than attempting to monopolize all force, and necessarily failing.
“Drill here, drill now” will do much to de-escalate the region.
A real free trade agreement, not thousand page carrot and stick managed trade, maybe one paragraph long stating ‘free trade and friendship with all peaceful nations’ and an end to all foreign aid would do wonders for world peace, everybody wants our wealth.
A real free trade policy would do wonders, especially if it included ending the cash handouts to Israel’s enemies.
There are many posts which continually bash Paul as anti-Semitic for disagreeing on our best course, as Allahpundit recently reminded us the cries of racism are “The last refuge of the liberal scoundrel.”
Other than difference of opinion on protecting US, and some third party quotes from 20 years ago, many of which were taken out of context by the lefty website ‘New Republic’, please provide some links to Ron Paul being a racist.
Actual quotes along the lines of Jenfidels blatant statement above will do.
numbeddown on September 27, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Except they don’t attack those with wealth, and they don’t attack those with differing beliefs. (Those with power may be a different story.)
Lots of countries have wealth. The Swiss, the Japanese, the Canadians… all rich, and certainly no coordinated campaign to kill them. They’re all richer than the Spanish and the British, and there have been sophisticated attacks there.
Likewise, they have no problem killing Muslims, poor and rich. How many Saudis have they killed? For that matter, how many Iraqis? While it may be arguable about the Iraqis, those Saudis tend to be pretty damn devout Muslims.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 11:28 PM
I assume you mean a nuclear war with Israel. Clearly, Israel could not wage an invasion of Iran.
So the assumption is that if Iran attains nukes, Israel will automatically go nuclear, and that Iran knows that.
Hmmmmm.
One consideration is the size of each nation’s arsenals… does Israel indeed have enough hardware to zorch Iran completely?
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 11:46 PM
YOU are a LIAR, Ron Paul was exposed on this very site in July for supporting 911 Conspiracy garbage. Ron Paul has ALso supported both the Moon Landing and Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy theories.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/18/finally-ron-paul-kinda-sorta-comes-out-as-a-truther/
Try again
nelsonknows on September 27, 2009 at 11:47 PM
More video of Ron Paul supporting conspiracy theory…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d91a13Yr3oQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihCP3cfS88E&feature=related
nelsonknows on September 28, 2009 at 12:10 AM
Are the Indians still at war with us? Do they still exist?
By the way, a considerable number of “palis” are Catholic or Orthodox. In fact, if you look up ‘Imwas, one of the buildings leveled by the Israelis for what became Canada Park was a Catholic Church.
unclesmrgol on September 28, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Paulites with so much wasted energy and direction. Where did their parents go wrong?
scotash on September 28, 2009 at 1:51 AM
My “blatant statement” wasn’t racist.
Islam isn’t a race.
It’s a religio-political system.
Dr. Paul has been documented for years attacking Jews, Israel and Zionists.
He is supported by Neo-Nazis like the membership of StormFront and David Duke, a known KKK member.
Connect the dots.
Jenfidel on September 28, 2009 at 1:59 AM
Charming come-back.
I don’t drink to excess.
And I certainly wouldn’t post on a political weblog refuting Paultard trolls if I were enjoying a 12-year-old Scotch.
Ya think?
This coming from a guy who won’t be happy with the WOT until we turn cities in the Middle East into “Dresden,” by which you mean fire-bombed ruins.
Jenfidel on September 28, 2009 at 2:15 AM
Hey, Ron, if an Iranian built nuke goes off in the middle of downtown Houston, THEN are we allowed to start worrying?
Are we allowed to start worrying when Hugo The Clown builds his own bombs and starts pointing TRBMs and IRBMs at us and the rest of our neighbors?
Tell us oh wise one: WHEN, exactly, should the American people be concerned for their safety and pull their heads out of the sand thinking “If we’re just nicer/more isolationist they’ll leave us alone!”?
Somebody get “The Doctor” some meds.
STAT!
SuperCool on September 28, 2009 at 3:17 AM
You idiot, Paul didn’t even know what those kids were talking about. He’s not a truther.
Spathi on September 28, 2009 at 3:18 AM
When oddballs come together, a tale of an ideological love story in D.C.
Mitchelle Bachmann hearts Ron Paul.
This is an amusing story (I don’t buy all its details or conclusions) about the chaos that ensued as Michelle Bachmann left her own district for a tour of Minnesota’s most Liberal district to face 2000-4000 students at the UofM, escorted by her new mentor Ron Paul.
Did Bachmann know what she was getting into?
“But she didn’t abandon her neocon or family-values convictions. As Paul spoke passionately about ending all military operations and keeping government out of people’s “lifestyles,” a lone heckler began to shout, “Tell her!” Bachmann remained serene, hands folded in her lap, facing Paul. Bringing up Obama’s announcement that Iran had secret underground nuclear facilities, Paul announced that he had had enough of “fear-mongering” for the sake of the “military-industrial complex.” Bachmann, who once advocated nuking Iran, kept her eyes trained on Paul as her heckler repeated, “Tell her! Tell Michele! Tell her!”
Finally, a second audience member snapped, “He’s trying to, OK?”
So is Bachmann falling for Ron Paul and his weekly lunch lectures and for Tom Woods books, which she tells the crowd she has been reading…o but the fire went wild.
Love is a burning thing
And it makes a fiery ring
Bound by wild desire
Bachmann fell into a ring of fire
She fell into a burning ring of fire
Bachmann went down, down, down and the flames went higher
And it burns, burns, burns, the ring of fire
The ring of fire
Bachmann fell into a burning ring of fire
she went down, down, down and the flames went higher
And it burns, burns, burns, the ring of fire
The ring of fire
The taste of love is sweet
When hearts like ours meet
She fell for you him a child
Oh, but the fire went wild
Bachmann fell into a burning ring of fire
She went down, down, down and the flames went higher
And it burns, burns, burns, the ring of fire
The ring of fire
Bachman fell into a burning ring of fire
She went down, down, down and the flames went higher
And it burns, burns, burns, the ring of fire
The ring of fire
And it burns, burns, burns, the ring of fire
The ring of fire
The ring of fire
The ring of fire
Spathi on September 28, 2009 at 4:27 AM
Today’s breaking news:
Iran test fires 2 long-range missiles
Let the fearmongering continue!
Jenfidel on September 28, 2009 at 5:21 AM
Allow me to quote you again:
You are such a weasel you cannot even admit you let your keyboard get ahead of your brain as I did with the Spanish train bombings. Instead, you continue to ignore your initial statement and now veer off into a proportional argument. The only problem is, that isn’t what you said. You argued that countries that stayed out of the ME were “completely ignored” by the islamists. And with that statement is a very specific message; if you leave them alon they will leave you alone. Most rational people know that is a specious argument.
But not you. Your going down with the ship, busily rearranging the deck chairs.
Good luck with that.
Tomblvd on September 28, 2009 at 6:23 AM
Defeat the government.
Elect Ron Paul in 2012.
Spathi on September 28, 2009 at 6:54 AM
”Because the central bank is the LIFEBLOOD of the EMPIRE.
If you want to stop the war machine, you have to go after the money machine.”-Tom Woods
This is why it’s preposterous to separate foreign and domestic policy.
You can’t fund the wars without the money machine. Who knows what other interests groups or favored countries the Fed is giving money too.
I doubt they’re cheating that much, but anytime you can print trillions and not know where it went, this always opens up the possibility of corruption.
Spathi on September 28, 2009 at 7:03 AM
Ron Paulist isolationism is why I stopped voting Libertarian after Sept. 11, 2001.
There is a nice, Platonic, idealism to strive for, but there is also reality.
rbj on September 28, 2009 at 8:09 AM
Bush is FAR more damage that Bin Laden bother in terms of overall deaths, injuries, spending on occupations that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Bush was definitely an enemy of conservatives.
Spathi on September 28, 2009 at 8:13 AM
I wonder what the Obama response would be to, oh, the Norks nuking Hawaii.
I know…he’d apologize.
Paul’s isolationism is Obama taken one step further, and just as effective at safeguarding the US. But as long as Paul has a newsletter to sell, I suppose he will continue his own unique brand of fear-mongering from the platform of his purchased House seat.
JohnTant on September 28, 2009 at 8:22 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 6 7 8 9 Next »