RON PAUL AND THE ISOLATIONIST DANGER - THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY
I had not intended to expound on the flak that Ron Paul has created since his appearance at the South Carolina GOP Presidential Debate on Tuesday May 15th. Since then though he has become the subject of a great deal of talk show time, news reports and of course the Internet.
Though I do not believe in any sense that Paul is a threat to the GOP or has more than a very slim chance at the nomination his isolationist ideas or more precise non - intervention ideas have revealed a large number of Americans who subscribe to this idea and also show a general lack of knowledge of some of our nations history and the enemy that we are currently fighting in defense of this country.
While Paul has created a fire ball of controversy concerning his 9/11 remarks at the debate I disagree with the move to have him banned from future debates. First it is his Constitutional right to run for office and to express his thoughts no matter how offensive they might be to many people.
Second banning him from the debates will have the opposite effect to his candidacy. Rather than stopping it as it would seem this move is designed it would actually cause many to flock to him as the media will create in Paul a political martyr picked on by the GOP and use this as an opportunity to attack the party. His lack of funding and popularity in itself will cause the end of his candidacy as it will to all candidates but the front runners some time in the next few months.
Now to his non-intervention platform. Paul in his comments at the debate stated that the attack on September 11 was due to interventionist policies of The United States and added to this ten years of , "bombing Iraq, " after the first Gulf War. He believes that we should keep our troops within our borders and stop intervening in the affairs of countries around the world.
His contention that 9/11 was a result of anger that Islamic fanatics have toward The United States due to our intervention in Middle East affairs is also based in part on the Fatwa manifesto that was given by Usama Bin Laden in 1998. He also basis his theory on CIA evaluation that US policy in the Middle East and other areas of the world has a, "blow back, "effect, which means that out intervention in certain areas could have an adverse effect on the US by in sighting anger.
Paul's theory on the , "blow back, " effect concerning 9/11 finds one major flaw in its premise setting aside the contention that we not Al Qaeda are at fault for the attacks. His theory does not take into account the fanaticism of radical Islam.
Radicals like bin Laden and other leaders in this Jihad against The United States are much smarter that they are given credit. They know the American mind set much more than we know and understand theirs. They realize that by claiming that US interventionist policy is the cause for their anger and attacks against us will strike a note in America and especially those who see this country as the worlds, "big bully."
This is the cord that has stricken Paul and those who agree with him. What they and many do not understand or accept is the religious fanaticism that actually and factually drives Islamic radicals and especially their hatred for the US and our people. This hatred is not for our policies as much but rather because we do not embrace their form of Islam therefor we are Infidels who deserve death and it is their holy duty to see to it that we convert or die and our way of life no longer exists.
The United States is also the major obstacle both in our power and influence to preventing Islamic radicals from converting and controlling the world as they do many areas in the Middle East. Our presence in that region is a constant reminder of the power of the Infidel and of our disobedience to Allah and their form of Islam. This religious fanaticism from radical Islam drives their Jihad and promotes their fighting and attacks which includes 9/11.
Paul's contention that 9/11 was a result of US interventionist policy fails the historical test also. If one believes that 9/11 was a result of US intervention and brought on by The United States then in the same context one must conclude that Pearl Harbor was a result of our own intervention.
Prior to the attack of December 1941, United States policy had us intervening in Far East countries like the Philippines and China as a stop gap for Japanese expansion. We also had a major oil embargo against Japan which hampered the country who was totally dependent on imported oil. Other sanctions were also in effect against Japan.
The Japanese claimed that our policies are the reason for the attack on Pearl Harbor and Japans declaration of war against The United States. It is historically accepted that US policies were not the blame for the attack and that it was then and still now accepted as an unprovoked attack.
9/11 likewise was an unprovoked attack against The United States. We in 1941 and today have the eternal right to defend our self as a Nation when attacked and that is why we went to war and why we fight the Islamic radicals today in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Additionally looking at the , "interventionist, " policy of The United States, the question must be asked in light of Ron Paul's non-intervention ideas, " how much different would the world be today if we had not intervened ?"
Pre-WWII Europe for example survived greatly because of US intervention assistance to Great Britain with supplies and money to fight Hitler. We then intervened in the war not because we were attacked but because it was the right thing to do and victory was the result. A victory that would not have been possible were it not for US intervention.
Countless countries throughout the world are saved from starvation and genocide under brutal dictators by US intervention. In a very real sense The United States intervention feeds most of the third world countries. Our intervention has prevented ecological and genocide disasters.
As the worlds lone superpower we have a great responsibility to the world and we take that responsibility seriously. Does it have its draw backs ? Sure our intervention does anger some but the positive far our weighs the negative and the good exceeds the bad tremendously.
Isolationism and non-intervention does not make Ron Paul a conservative as many suggest but a naive politician who would take The United States backwards and more vulnerable to attack in a world that has grown and become exceedingly more dangerous in the years before our superpower status. Paul's ideas are dangerous especially in a post 9/11 world and in light of the many countries who depend on our support and our strength for their defense.
Ken Taylor
Though I do not believe in any sense that Paul is a threat to the GOP or has more than a very slim chance at the nomination his isolationist ideas or more precise non - intervention ideas have revealed a large number of Americans who subscribe to this idea and also show a general lack of knowledge of some of our nations history and the enemy that we are currently fighting in defense of this country.
While Paul has created a fire ball of controversy concerning his 9/11 remarks at the debate I disagree with the move to have him banned from future debates. First it is his Constitutional right to run for office and to express his thoughts no matter how offensive they might be to many people.
Second banning him from the debates will have the opposite effect to his candidacy. Rather than stopping it as it would seem this move is designed it would actually cause many to flock to him as the media will create in Paul a political martyr picked on by the GOP and use this as an opportunity to attack the party. His lack of funding and popularity in itself will cause the end of his candidacy as it will to all candidates but the front runners some time in the next few months.
Now to his non-intervention platform. Paul in his comments at the debate stated that the attack on September 11 was due to interventionist policies of The United States and added to this ten years of , "bombing Iraq, " after the first Gulf War. He believes that we should keep our troops within our borders and stop intervening in the affairs of countries around the world.
His contention that 9/11 was a result of anger that Islamic fanatics have toward The United States due to our intervention in Middle East affairs is also based in part on the Fatwa manifesto that was given by Usama Bin Laden in 1998. He also basis his theory on CIA evaluation that US policy in the Middle East and other areas of the world has a, "blow back, "effect, which means that out intervention in certain areas could have an adverse effect on the US by in sighting anger.
Paul's theory on the , "blow back, " effect concerning 9/11 finds one major flaw in its premise setting aside the contention that we not Al Qaeda are at fault for the attacks. His theory does not take into account the fanaticism of radical Islam.
Radicals like bin Laden and other leaders in this Jihad against The United States are much smarter that they are given credit. They know the American mind set much more than we know and understand theirs. They realize that by claiming that US interventionist policy is the cause for their anger and attacks against us will strike a note in America and especially those who see this country as the worlds, "big bully."
This is the cord that has stricken Paul and those who agree with him. What they and many do not understand or accept is the religious fanaticism that actually and factually drives Islamic radicals and especially their hatred for the US and our people. This hatred is not for our policies as much but rather because we do not embrace their form of Islam therefor we are Infidels who deserve death and it is their holy duty to see to it that we convert or die and our way of life no longer exists.
The United States is also the major obstacle both in our power and influence to preventing Islamic radicals from converting and controlling the world as they do many areas in the Middle East. Our presence in that region is a constant reminder of the power of the Infidel and of our disobedience to Allah and their form of Islam. This religious fanaticism from radical Islam drives their Jihad and promotes their fighting and attacks which includes 9/11.
Paul's contention that 9/11 was a result of US interventionist policy fails the historical test also. If one believes that 9/11 was a result of US intervention and brought on by The United States then in the same context one must conclude that Pearl Harbor was a result of our own intervention.
Prior to the attack of December 1941, United States policy had us intervening in Far East countries like the Philippines and China as a stop gap for Japanese expansion. We also had a major oil embargo against Japan which hampered the country who was totally dependent on imported oil. Other sanctions were also in effect against Japan.
The Japanese claimed that our policies are the reason for the attack on Pearl Harbor and Japans declaration of war against The United States. It is historically accepted that US policies were not the blame for the attack and that it was then and still now accepted as an unprovoked attack.
9/11 likewise was an unprovoked attack against The United States. We in 1941 and today have the eternal right to defend our self as a Nation when attacked and that is why we went to war and why we fight the Islamic radicals today in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Additionally looking at the , "interventionist, " policy of The United States, the question must be asked in light of Ron Paul's non-intervention ideas, " how much different would the world be today if we had not intervened ?"
Pre-WWII Europe for example survived greatly because of US intervention assistance to Great Britain with supplies and money to fight Hitler. We then intervened in the war not because we were attacked but because it was the right thing to do and victory was the result. A victory that would not have been possible were it not for US intervention.
Countless countries throughout the world are saved from starvation and genocide under brutal dictators by US intervention. In a very real sense The United States intervention feeds most of the third world countries. Our intervention has prevented ecological and genocide disasters.
As the worlds lone superpower we have a great responsibility to the world and we take that responsibility seriously. Does it have its draw backs ? Sure our intervention does anger some but the positive far our weighs the negative and the good exceeds the bad tremendously.
Isolationism and non-intervention does not make Ron Paul a conservative as many suggest but a naive politician who would take The United States backwards and more vulnerable to attack in a world that has grown and become exceedingly more dangerous in the years before our superpower status. Paul's ideas are dangerous especially in a post 9/11 world and in light of the many countries who depend on our support and our strength for their defense.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 11:08 AM
23 Comments:
You're really opening yourself up on this one Ken. Ron Paul supporters have been flooding blogs insisting that their man is the "true" conservative.
Well, I've worked with and met even more of the "true" conservatives and none of them would agree with Ron Paul.
His views represent a small, neglible minority of persons. They're not even Republicans.
They don't support the general GOP platform, they don't work for candidates or donate money to any outside of their sect.
You know the Democrats have their nutjobs too. But the difference between the GOP and Dems is that we shun our nuts and the Dems embrace them. Remember Michael Moore sitting in the Presidential Box with Carter at the Dem Convention in 2004?
Paul's candidacy isn't going anywhere. Let his supporters whine. They're totally irrelevant too.
Agree completely Mike. I only posted this because of the many who believe as he does.
He in not a Republican or even a conservative. I mentioned about my interview with him at the debate. When he was pushed he fell back to liberal talking points.
He will fade away as his money and lack of real support fade latter in the summer or early fall.
I think this guy is dangerous not only to our party but to the entire Country.
I can understand the Martyr affect and all but this guy needs to be taken out of the GOP contention at least, he is NOT a Republican.
He is running in the wrong party as was suggested.
He has every right to run, but just not in the GOP.
In agreement with Ken, I think Paul should be left exactly where he is, because even though he has shown himself to be more a lefty moonbat than a true conservative, as an American he does have his right to free speech.
Remember, it is a Democrat tactic to bar, ban or otherwise eliminate those who express dissenting opinions, and we don't want to go to their level.
Removing Paul from any G.O.P. forums could brand Republicans with the same intolerance that is a keystone of today's Democrats/liberals.
Despite all the hype about tons and bunches of people agreeing with the mutt, the amount of votes he'll get at the polls will be less than insignificant, anyway.
I have spent quite a few bytes on this dust up.
Here is where I agree with Ron Paul. Our policies did bring about 9/11 just as they did Pearl Harbor.
However, I recognize evil & bad men abhor just & good policies. Surely, if we were working to establish eighth century Sharia throughout the world Osama and his minions not only would agree they would be helping.
No, its not interference they protest, its interference against them and their plans they protest.
Blowback it was, and blowback it is. Always has been.
To not understand your quarry is dangerous, as any hunter will tell you. You guys are so militarily naive, it's frightening for the nation.
*****
And you guys clearly understand nothing of conservatism. You guys equate rightwing reactionary radicalism with conservatism. Hardly. I suggest you guys go look up what classical conservatism means.
Everything has to be spelled out for you guys.
I'm serious. Go look it up. Look up classical conservatism in any encyclopedia. Go look up the mere word "conservative" in the dictionary.
You guys are anything but.
Catfish,
To not understand your quarry is dangerous, as any hunter will tell you. You guys are so militarily naive, it's frightening for the nation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh enlighten us on your vast Military experience.
I gotta see this.
Mudkitty, did you totally neglegt to read the part of the post that factualy states the real reason why Islamic fanatics seek our deatruction ?
They use the blow back idea only because they are smart enough to understand how to stir up politics in this country.
Their true reason is because in their fanatical mind you and I are Infidels who because we do not follow Allah as they do deserve to die! Period!
Yeah, I guess all the killing between Lebanon and Palestine this week is blow back from our presence there... oh wait, we're not there.
This week Muslim radicals bombed another mosque in India, killing 10 people, the survivors decided to take out their rage on shop owners and Hindus. Yup must be some more of Mudtwitty's "blow back".
Fatah al-Islam this week vowed to "open the gates of fire" in Lebanon and told the army not to take "provocative actions". Yup that again must be because of America's foreign policy, damn that blow back.
I'm not a conservative, I'm a Republican by choice and an American by birth. Don't come on conservative or Republican sites and pull a Rosie. We all know how to Google. Your assumptions that you know who and what we are is preposterous. And your "you aren't conservative" angle is tired. BIG YAWN.
Good morning, Ken.
Ron Paul and Jimmy Carter have a lot in common. They both are experts at opening their mouths and inserting their feet! Like Carter, Paul is quickly becoming irrelevant, and you are right, he does have the right to say what he chooses. Let them both yack away to their hearts content. They show us who they really are.
I agree saying that September 11th was partially a reaction to our support of Israel is like saying that Pearl Harbor was a reaction to our support of China in thier war against Japan.
It still does not justify it or make it our fault. If we are to base our policies around our fear of terrorism, then we allow terrorism to succeed and control our lives. If we bow down to the pressures or threats of these groups, much as Spain did in their last general elections, then we allow them to win and encourage more of this behavior.
If you think being in Iraq has generated more terrorist, why don't you start giving in to their demands and see how many more attacks we have. Should we abandon our allies like Chamberlain did just to try to avoid a fight? Or should we stand up to these fascists and engage them when and where we choose; not on their terms?
Mudkitty, what is your military experience? Rank? Service? Time in? What we do recognize is the lessons of the past. Capitulation and appeasement do not work. They only serve to fuel the ambitons of the aggressors by allowing them to think that there is no price we will not pay to avoid conflict. Isolationism is a flawed philosophy that nearly cost us World War II. Some enemies can not be reasoned with, they only understand overwelming force. Showing any sign of weakness will only encourage your enemies to attack and exploit that weakness.
Y'all, of course, miss the meaning of Paul's words.
Blow back is merely the unintended consequence of policy and action. 9/11 is not our "fault", and that is not what Paul said. Any objective look at history reveals many causes leading to 9/11, some of which were a consequence of U.S. polices in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere, going back decades.
Hell, go back just to the 80's when we loosed Bin Laden with arms and and a hearty of "go jihadi" against our infidel enemy, the Russians.
Blowback is a CIA/military term, and if you guys don't understand it, in addition to being dangerous for the Nation, it explains and reveals a lot about rightwingers and their grasp of history, both short term and long term.
Jenn, if you want to address me, have the guts to do it on your own site?
Catfish,
I am still waiting for you to tell us all of your vast Military experience.
You threw it out there, now you answer it.
I didn't throw that out there. CCC threw it out there, the implication being that only those who've served in the military are qualified to even speak of military history and tactics, which is an UnAmerican thing to imply, if you read your Constitution.
And what of your vast military service 2 cents?
Catfish,
To not understand your quarry is dangerous, as any hunter will tell you. You guys are so militarily naive, it's frightening for the nation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You guy's!! That's talking about ALL of us not just CC. Dont try to cover up your mistake with another one.
I come from a Military family some serving as we speak, and You?
You have still not offered one shred of evidence that you know anythingthing of what you are talking.
It is most certainly not UnAmerican to imply that you dont know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to the Military when you know nothing about them. If you did you would fully support our Troops, tell those that dont to stuff it, and not throw in with the blame our Troops and America first crowd.
That's about as UnAmerican as it gets
I come from a military family going back 4 generation - ooops actually 5, some serving as we speak, as well. Shows how much you know, Marie. You silly fool.
Have you done any real research on Dollard yet? Have you even lifted a finger? You will be so embarrassed when you learn the truth.
Also, Marie, why do you stalk me here, when if you had the guts you would address me on your site. Only you banned me. So you stalk me here.
Catfish,
OMG!! Now I know for sure you are nuts!
I never banned you from my site!
You're thinking of Jenn. And now I see why!
The only one I would ban from my site is KEvron.
And NO I am not going to lift a finger to find out the accusations YOU threw out there about Pat Dollard being Insane!
You threw it out there you prove it.
You cant that's why you post only drivel.
Read Dollard's own words, his own account of his time in Iraq, his own account of his drug addictions, and his whore mongering, and his love of violence in the article in Vanity Fair. It's all over the world. Dollard spent hours in interviews for this article. Read Dollard's own words.
Maybe you've never heard of Vanity Fair?
I need to remember to go easy on you.
This article is chocked full of dumb. I suggest you discover real history and the hidden truths that lie within.
"If one believes that 9/11 was a result of US intervention and brought on by The United States then in the same context one must conclude that Pearl Harbor was a result of our own intervention."
Seriously? Because as actual history has it, we led the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor to gain support for entering WW2....which was necessary to honor the deal made between Zionists and Britain to get America into Europe and help with war, in exchange for honoring the Balfour Declaration and creating a Jewish state in Palestine. This deal was also double-crossing Hitler, whom Zionist jews had previously come to an agreement with to not take sides in the war.
America has a long-standing tradition of overthrowing democratic governments and installing brutal dictators that they can control. Countries including: Hawaii, Cuba, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua , Honduras, Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, Chile, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The number of others indirectly influenced could be much more.
Welcome to the fascist empire of Amerika...with military bases across the globe in 130+ countries.
Your arguments against Dr. Paul are baseless and laced with a nationalistic blindness. Get a grasp of history and facts please.
America isn't the bastion of freedom, democracy, and goodness it's sheeple want to believe it is.
It has become a pathocracy.
It's not to late to fix things, but time is shorter than you know.
When you work on your grammar I will read more than 2 paragraphs.
American foriegn policy did cause Pearl Harbor.
We had already sided with the Chinese, the Japanese merely escalated our involvement.
Post a Comment
<< Home