Ron Paul's "noninterventionism" fraud

Bidinotto Blog & The New Individualist ^

[mnehring]

Oh, but apparently he does think there is a bogeyman enemy, unfortunately he think’s its the CFR and not islamists who actually are blowing us up.

[bray]

There are lots of excuses for Cowardice and Canada has plenty. Guess they will never have to worry about being a superpower.

Pray for W and Our Victorious Troops

[MNJohnnie]

Again wrong.

The problem he is too many of you wholly ignorant screaming Paulbots confuse your personal emotional based rabidly ignorant feelings for the US Constitution.

It would be nice if the screamers ONE time actually tried READING the document instead of just shouting the term “US Constitution” in every sentence.

[trisham]

It would be nice if the screamers ONE time actually tried READING the document instead of just shouting the term “US Constitution” in every sentence.

*************

Especially since it's the *US* Constitution.

[hedgetrimmer]

Because like it or not evil men exist in the world and they want to either kill you just for being of European decent or enslave you in service of their moon god death cult.

Gosh, then why are we enriching them by buying oil from them and why are we letting them buy our most valuable assets and corporations (like Citibank)?

[samtheman]

The manipulative use, by Paul and too many libertarians, of vague, undefined smear terms such as "interventionist" and "neocon" permits them to blame the U.S. government for virtually anything it does in our legitimate, long-term self-defense, anywhere in the world. Actions to thwart coercive threats, such as forging defensive alliances, are "interventionism." Helping other nations counter a growing peril from a declared U.S. enemy nation (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Iran, etc.) is "interventionism." Sometimes, even trading with adversaries of dictatorial regimes (e.g., trading with Taiwan, an enemy of China) is "interventionism."

If L Ron Paul had been President in 1940, the Japanese would not have been so worried about the US and would not have attacked Pearl Harbor. All those Americans who died in WWII would have been spared.

Of course, the world would have ended up being a much different place.

[mnehring]

Last time I checked, Osama didn’t own any oil wells and wasn’t the purchaser of Citibank.

[jrooney]

Don’t forget we captured a group Germans that came here to attack us during WW2. Hitler would have taken the fight to us even if the Japanese had not attacked us. He had to be stopped or we would be speaking German today.

[billbears]

If L Ron Paul had been President in 1940, the Japanese would not have been so worried about the US and would not have attacked Pearl Harbor. All those Americans who died in WWII would have been spared. Of course, the world would have ended up being a much different place.

Of course if Dr. Paul had been President in 1916 we wouldn't have interfered in WWI in a campaign to 'spread democracy' laying the seeds for WWII....oh never mind, I keep forgetting 'conservative' history stops at WWII and Hitler. It's okay to play what ifs with WWII but not with WWI. Because if we play what ifs with WWI, the 'conservative' argument for interventionism falls apart.

[rob777]

While I agree with the critique of Ron's foreign policy, there is much else in the article that I find to be off.


"Ron Paul (along with those libertarians who agree with him) therefore completely misunderstands the philosophical foundations of individual rights and freedom. The mere fact that he and his backers sanctimoniously claim such lofty language does not mean that they are true defenders of individual rights and liberty. That is clear from Paul's stands not just on foreign policy and national defense, but on such issues as immigration and abortion, where he ironically takes what can only be described as "government interventionist" stands."

Is it interventionist to protect human life, or to secure a country's borders? These are a few of the legitimate functions of government. On these issues, I stand with Ron Paul.



"As his coercive positions on abortion and immigration underscore, Ron Paul doesn't even grasp what the principle of individual rights is all about. His is the traditional, platonic view of "natural rights" shared by many other libertarians, which tacitly equates anti-government positions with pro-liberty positions -- as if they are the same."

While it is true that pro-liberty does not necessarily equate with anti-government, there is nothing philosophically "platonic" about such a position. It merely stems from an overreaction to the threat to liberty posed by an over reaching government. Furthermore, how can Ron's view of liberty be equated with a mere anti-government stance when he supports the use of government to defend the life of the unborn and to police the country's borders?

The author should of stopped with a critique of Ron's foreign policy positions.

[MNJohnnie]

Ah I see. Don't annoy the Paulbots with the facts. They have their emotion based ignorant dogmas and they are sticking to them.

Tell you want, Take some basic econ classes, then some history. Then when you have the slightest clue what you are talking about, we can have an intelligent discussion.

As long as you insist, like the rest of the Paulbots, to scream wholly ignorant, emotion based slogans that have NO base in factual reality, there is no possibility of an intelligent discussion with you.

Nice you have feelings. Too bad for you, feelings are not facts. Unfortunately for you, your feelings on both US Economic and National security issues are wholly based only your personal emotion based reality. Too bad for you that reality exists only inside your own head.

[Tears of a Clown]

There are more truthers/racists supporting ron paul than actual libertarians.

Sad but true.

[samtheman]

I actually think the argument can be made that it was a mistake for us to intervene in WWI, but it’s only an argument and no one knows for sure.

One thing I am quite certain about, the “seeds of WWII” were already laid by the slaughter of WWI whether or not we entered the war. Though it’s true that a stalemate (which MIGHT have occurred if the US stayed out) would have not resulted in a humiliating defeat for Germany, Hitler would not have then gone on to become a clerk in an architects office and the centuries of anti-semitism and all the other forces that were building towards fascism in Germany wouldn’t have suddenly, and magically, disappeared.

It’s impossible to predict what would have happened in Europe if the US had stayed out of WWI and to claim otherwise is just plain silly.

One thing is sure: as the power of modern weaponry increased, the US was bound to find itself on the wrong end of a world-conquering dictatorial experiment of one kind or another and the “non-interventionists” in America would have been, de-facto, on the side of that dictatorial expansion.

The bottom line is, in the 20th century the world got smaller and the weapons got larger and the modern world-conquering dictator was born and it was up to the US to deal with it, as we did in WWII and the cold war, or put our heads in the sand and end up being a vassal state, like you would have us end up doing now, in the face of the global expansion of the Jihadists.

[hedgetrimmer]

Tell you want, Take some basic econ classes, then some history.

The factual reality is that people like YOU are selling every thing of value in this country to the Muslim world. They did it in France first, and now in your mind, it's our turn.Now here's your lesson for the day. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (the state or territory under the jurisdiction of an emir(a title of honor of the descendants of Muhammad)) now own banking (citibank), investment(carlyle group) and national security companies (haliburton). How do you claim we have a 'war' going on when the American economy is funding the enemy? You live in Alice's wonderland.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Most of those that will read this thread won't understand the difference and cheer right along with you that another liberventionist talking out of his @ss doesn't understand Dr. Paul either.

Yep, salivating right on que, just like Pavlov's dog.

[samtheman]

Don’t forget we captured a group Germans that came here to attack us during WW2. Hitler would have taken the fight to us even if the Japanese had not attacked us. He had to be stopped or we would be speaking German today.

I know. I purposely left that part out. What you have just done is tell "the rest of the story".

[RedRover]

And Hitler's U-boats reached across the Atlantic. As the song of the time went, "Did you have a friend on the good Rueben James?"

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Straight from the horse's "mouth".

I don't have a problem with that quote, which has been spun to make it appear that Dr. Paul blames America.

All Paul did was look for a motive. You do know what a motive is, right?

Anywho, the quote has been confirmed by the 9/11 Commission, Wolfowitz, the CIA bin Laden Unit, and Bin Laden himself.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

There are lots of excuses for Cowardice and Canada has plenty.

You know that Canada has been our ally in the WOT, right?

Are you going to smear Polish & British troops for "cutting and running" from the Middle East too?

[Gondring]

Was it therefore unreasonable or wrong for the U.S. and Britain to take action to topple a dictatorial, increasingly leftist regime, in order to regain that stolen property and, more importantly, to protect American national security interests?

I wonder if the anti-Paul globalists would support the US Army going to Nigeria and recovering my investment if it goes badly.

Amazing that they try to say sending US troops to die for a British corporation is a wonderfully justifiable act that goes against Dr. Paul's point, when it makes it quite clearly.

Oh, and I'm a US citizen (one of my ancestors was a late-comer--not arriving until 1850--but I do trace back to the Mayflower, first Palatines, etc...and I hope that's good enough for everyone!) who has read the Constitution many times...and I know that declaring War is not in the Executive. And I believe that with all the persistence in stretching and twisting the words of the Constitution, it has become quite simple for the left to subvert it. How can the people rely upon the Second Amendment as written while distorting Article I, Sections 8-10 or Article II, Section 2?

And a strong Constitution is our greatest strength.