Straight Talk: Paul Has a Point

FOXNews.com ^ | 5/21/2007 | Radley Balko

[P-40]

From the viewpoint of Al Qaeda, 9/11 was in part an act of retribution and it certainly was both a tragedy and a crime from out point of view. I think Paul’s point of view is that we can, in essence, withdraw enough into an isolationist position to have relative safety by minding our own business. I don’t support that view. In this interconnected world, it would not work.

[Gondring]

Denouncing an act of cowardice in killing helpless women and children shows the nature of the enemy we are fighting, those who use women and children as shields.

I don't see the need for those first few words.

No one is underestimating the enemy's ruthlessness or cunning.

Ruthlessness or cunning are words that could apply equally well to those who don't face death.

But I don't grant him the virture of courage, since that is a virture he has not earned.

Oh, you're the arbiter? Seems to me they took action without your okay.

But if you absolutely insist on twisting the English language in order to avoid assigning a "virtue" to them, then what word would you propose to indicate what courage actually means...that is, acting in the face of fear or consequences, regardless of whether it is for good or evil goals?

Those men followed a religion which hates life and that is why dying for them was easy to do.

If it was so easy, why are not the 1 billion Muslims all blowing themselves up? Seems to me that many of them don't "hate" their own lives.

[Gondring]

For me, an interesting part of the article was this...

Those who find Rep. Paul's foreign policy vision fringe-like or crazy would do well to read what other libertarian non-interventionists were saying before the Iraq war began. They were remarkably prescient. Some even predicted a Sept. 11-like attack years before it happened. For example:

— The Cato Institute's Gene Healy: "After our quick victory, and after the "Arab street" fails to rise, you're going to hear a lot of self-congratulation from the hawks. But the fallout from this war is likely to be long-term, in the form of a protracted and messy occupation, and an enhanced terrorist recruitment base."

— Ted Galen Carpenter, also of Cato: "The inevitable U.S. military victory would not be the end of America's troubles in Iraq. Indeed, it would mark the start of a new round of headaches. Ousting Saddam would make Washington responsible for Iraq's political future and entangle the United States in an endless nation-building mission beset by intractable problems."

Now contrast those forecasts — both made before the war — with predictions from the war's architects:

— Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz: "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

— Vice President Dick Cheney: "I don't think it would be that tough a fight."


— White House economic advisor Glenn Hubbard: "Costs of any [Iraq] intervention would be very small."

— OMB Director Mitch Daniels: "The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."

I think there were a lot of libertarians/true conservatives (not neocons) who were right on target about what we have seen in Iraq.

[P-40]

I think there were a lot of libertarians/true conservatives (not neocons) who were right on target about what we have seen in Iraq.

Good points. I remember first hearing the news on the morning of September 11th and being totally unsurprised. It was about what I expected. What was not expected by me was the total lack of military aircraft at the ready to go airborne with shoot-down orders at the ready. But then, I remember the Cold War and all those Alert Sites all over the United States. I did not know so many were closed in the 90s. I think it was Boston Airport that did not know either. They were trying to call a base that had been closed for many years trying to ask for help.

[The_Eaglet]

Thanks for the flag.

[NCSteve]

You should probably cite the entire quote: "Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal. It is unwise because of many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result. It is immoral and unjust, because it had nothing to do with United States security and because Iraq had not initiated aggression against us."

There is nothing fictitious in that quote. It is an expression of an opinion. As well, the War Powers act did not apply since the context was action by Congress to "authorize the use of force." Congress chose to take the spineless route and avoid an actual declaration of war. This is what Paul was speaking against.

You are unfamiliar with the goals spelled out in the congressional authorization for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Oh, but I am, and there's your fiction.

Also, I just don’t think forming a multi-national coalition to remove a tyrant and free millions from tyranny is immoral, unjust, or illegal. And I find it bizzarre that one would claim otherwise.

Ah, so you would have no problem with the Chinese, the Russians, the Cubans, and half a dozen African hellholes teaming up to invade us, overthrow our government, and occupy our cities? After all, they consider our system tyrannical, our President a tyrant, and they would simply be acting to free millions from that tyranny.

[NCSteve]

I have encountered no end of leftist idiots who tried to claim libertarianism. They seem to think that being pro-choice and anti-war qualifies them. When I describe Christian libertarianism, the form to which I adhere, it usually leaves them shaking their heads.

[death2tyrants]

Opps, I hadn't seen this arguement earlier. I use the American Heritage definition: American Heritage Dictionary - trai·tor (trā'tər) Pronunciation Key n. One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason. ---- Being that Ron Paul publicly repeats the lies of our enemies, I see it as a betrayal.

[death2tyrants]

“There is nothing fictitious in that quote.”

Yes there is : “The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal.”

He is accusing the U.S. of breaking the law when he declares it illegal. This is a ficticious charge by Ron Paul. If a crime had been committed, why doesn’t he take legal action against the criminals involved?

“Congress chose to take the spineless route and avoid an actual declaration of war. This is what Paul was speaking against. “

The authorization of use of force complied with the War Powers Act.

“Oh, but I am, and there’s your fiction”

Your solution of simply assasinating Saddam would not meet the goals within the Congressional Authorization of Use of Force. What claims have I made that you believe are fiction?

“Ah, so you would have no problem with the Chinese, the Russians, the Cubans, and half a dozen African hellholes teaming up to invade us, overthrow our government, and occupy our cities? After all, they consider our system tyrannical, our President a tyrant, and they would simply be acting to free millions from that tyranny.”

Sounds like a strawman basking in moral relativism and short on fact. The comparison of your hypothetical to Operation Iraqi Freedom makes no sense. We invaded Iraq with a mandate signed by nations you cited in your hypothetical, after 12 years of failed diplomacy and blatent violation of the cease fire agreement which ended the first gulf war. When one side breaks a ceasefire agreement (as Saddam did), then the other side has the right to resume hostilities. Thus, Operation Iraqi Freedom was the resumption of an earlier conflict. Your hypothetical omits this pretext. Your accusations against the nations you cite in your hypothetical appear to be ficticious. For example, when did Russia, a permanant member of the Security Council, delcare Bush a ‘tyrant’?

[death2tyrants]

Agreed. And that’s an excellect summary of Saddam’s provocations.

[NCSteve]

Your solution of simply assasinating Saddam would not meet the goals within the Congressional Authorization of Use of Force. What claims have I made that you believe are fiction?

I offered no such solution and accused you of no fiction. Try again.

Sounds like a strawman basking in moral relativism and short on fact.

No, yours is the straw-man, and yours is the moral relativism. Your assumption that we are the arbiters of what is tyranny is based on an assumed moral superiority. That is the arrogance which leads us to interventionism and makes us no better than the Soviets during the height of their adventurism in Africa, Eastern Europe, and Afghanistan.

We invaded Iraq with a mandate signed by nations you cited in your hypothetical...

So what? The example I gave was in direct response to your assumption of our moral superiority in removing whomever we define as a tyrant. You are evading with legalisms.

Thus, Operation Iraqi Freedom was the resumption of an earlier conflict. Your hypothetical omits this pretext.

Wrong. You have attempted to shift context in order to evade the question. You stated that we were removing a tyrant and saving millions from tyranny. That is moral relativism founded on an arrogant assumption that we are the sole arbiters of what is and is not tyranny. The issue is not whether Saddam was a tyrant or not, the issue is our assumption of the role of judge, jury, and executioner.

Furthermore, any and all such arguments are anti-constitutional. There is no place in that document that authorizes us to exert our moral judgments on any sovereign nation. This is the basis of Ron Paul's charge. You have not answered it.

Your accusations against the nations you cite in your hypothetical appear to be ficticious. For example, when did Russia, a permanant member of the Security Council, delcare Bush a ‘tyrant’??

Now you're just babbling and throwing up side-tracks. I've made no accusations against those nations and did not assert that Russia had made any such declaration.

[fortheDeclaration]

From the viewpoint of Al Qaeda, 9/11 was in part an act of retribution and it certainly was both a tragedy and a crime from out point of view. I think Paul’s point of view is that we can, in essence, withdraw enough into an isolationist position to have relative safety by minding our own business. I don’t support that view. In this interconnected world, it would not work.

I am not concerned with the Muslim 'point of view',which frankly, doesn't line up with reality.

We did not have it 'coming to us'(retribution) as if we brought this on ourselves by our misguided foreign policy.

Now, there is much to be critical of U.S. foreign policy, in that it hasn't placed U.S. interests first, that it has been globalist, as was the case of Bush senior and Clinton.

We do need to follow a policy that reflects the interests of the United States.

[fortheDeclaration]

Denouncing an act of cowardice in killing helpless women and children shows the nature of the enemy we are fighting, those who use women and children as shields. I don't see the need for those first few words.

That's because you don't see it as an act of cowardice.

No one is underestimating the enemy's ruthlessness or cunning.

Ruthlessness or cunning are words that could apply equally well to those who don't face death.

And the facing death is irrelevant to courage, since people can face death because they hate life.

Those who showed real courage were those on flight 77 who wanted to live but freely gave their lives so that others would not die.

Don't compare what the terrorists did and what they did as both being 'courageous'.

But I don't grant him the virtue of courage, since that is a virtue he has not earned.

Oh, you're the arbiter? Seems to me they took action without your okay.

Since I live in free nation, I have a right to make moral judgments.

But if you absolutely insist on twisting the English language in order to avoid assigning a "virtue" to them, then what word would you propose to indicate what courage actually means...that is, acting in the face of fear or consequences, regardless of whether it is for good or evil goals?

Courage is doing something that you would rather not do.

If dying is better than living, than it is not an act of courage to die.

I would call what they did fanticalism, but not courage.

Those men followed a religion which hates life and that is why dying for them was easy to do.

If it was so easy, why are not the 1 billion Muslims all blowing themselves up? Seems to me that many of them don't "hate" their own lives.

Because most Muslims do not strictly follow their religion.

These guys were the 'true' believers.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Not true at all. I’m not always this brave in front of my computer monitor. The last time I saw the Blue Screen Of Death, I hid under my desk for three days strait.

i don't have that problem. Two words: Install Linux. i don't worry about virii or spyware any more either, and don't spend a lot of my time on system maintenance. Of course if you're going to do serious gaming, Stay with Windows, it's better for such things.

This wouldn’t achive the objectives spelled out in the Congressional Authorization For Use of Force Against Iraq. I strongly support this legislation and the objectives within.

Of course, Congressman Paul did not support the legislation: He wanted a Declaration of War against Iraq instead. (Note that he did support and voted for the Afghanistan action).

As for whether or not the objectives of the Congressional Authorisation are met, who cares? We should not have gone there in the first place.

I’m waiting for Ron Paul to apologise for making fasle accusations against America.

We're still waiting on you to document a single false accusation.

If you had confidence in Ron Paul’s take on the truther conspiricy theories, you would have easily rebutted the association. Instead, you dodged the question. I’ve been debating with the left for years. Here is the Ron Paul talking points they use with their ‘see, even Republicans agree’ nonsense, (all ficticious claims by Ron Paul):

YOU made the accusations, it's YOUR job to document them. It is NOT up to me to do your work for you. You haven't documented a single conspiracy theory propagated by Ron Paul as of this reading. The only thing you've got is that he appears on the Alex Jones programme from time to time (so do lots of other people, many of whom do not believe in or propagate conspiracy theories).

Are you saying that both the 9/11 commission (bipartisan), and the CIA Iraq desk are conspiracy theorists (cause that was his source in the SC debate)? If you are, get help. If you recall correctly, the 9/11 commission is being targeted by the kooks.

“Iraq has never committed any aggression against the United States.”-Ron Paul ****This is false. Iraqi military shooting at U.S. warplanes contitutes aggression on Saddam’s part and is in direct violation of the cease fire agreement that ended the first gulf war. The attempted assasination attempt of George H.W. Bush constitutes an act of aggression and puts Saddam in violation of the cease fire agreement that ended the first gulf war. The attack on the U.S.S. Stark, leading to the death of 37 U.S. sailors, also constitutes an act of aggression. All of which are ignored by Ron Paul.

Hello!, those fighters were over Iraqi air space. You honestly expect that we wouldn't shoot at Iraqi fighters flying over our country? As for the Attempted assination of Bush 41, IIRC, Bush wasn't the President at the time. It was an act of agression against George H. W. Bush, not the United States.

The Stark was a tragic mistake. At least Ronald Reagan and 'Cap' Weinberger seemed to think so., and that's good enough for me...unless you think that President Reagan was a kook conspiracy theorist too.

Lie Number 2: “No one in the media questions our aggression against Iraq for the past 12 years by continuous bombing and imposed sanctions responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children.”

Is it a lie?

• Would those Iraqis have died if we had not bombed?
• Would those Iraqis have died if the sanctions were not imposed?

Answer no to one of those, and your argument falls by the wayside.

BTW, you perhaps heard of the UN corruption involved in the "Iraqi Oil For Food programme" But, no, it's all the easier to blame the Iraqi government for UN corruption, cause nobody liked them, right?

Bottom line: If the things that have happened to Iraq (rightly, or wrongly) had happened to the US, i can assure you that there would be an insurgency here that would rival anything in history...cease fire agreement or not.

Incidentally, your last paragraph proves that had the sanctions not been in place, those children would not have died, Saddam notwithstanding. Congradulations, you just proved Ron Paul's point.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Opps, I hadn't seen this arguement earlier. I use the American Heritage definition: American Heritage Dictionary - trai·tor (trā'tər) Pronunciation Key n. One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason. ---- Being that Ron Paul publicly repeats the lies of our enemies, I see it as a betrayal.

Nice try, but no go.

Repeating anybody's lies does not make one a trator. Do you accuse the 9/11 commission and the CIA of treason too?

[P-40]

I am not concerned with the Muslim 'point of view',which frankly, doesn't line up with reality.

Well, you should be. You don't have to care about their point of view, or think it is realistic, or plan to alter your life in any way because of it. But you should know that they do have various points of view and you should understand them...or they can come back to bite you in really alarming ways.

[fortheDeclaration]

I am not concerned with the Muslim 'point of view',which frankly, doesn't line up with reality.

Well, you should be. You don't have to care about their point of view, or think it is realistic, or plan to alter your life in any way because of it. But you should know that they do have various points of view and you should understand them...or they can come back to bite you in really alarming ways.

What we need to know about anyone who is evil is that they should be dealt with accordingly, with force and resolve.

9/11 came from not dealing with them as global threat and reacting accordingly.

It did not come from not 'understanding' their point of view.

I do not care about the Nazi or Communist point of view either.

What you and others have taken is the MSM view, that every issue has two sides, a moral relativism.

That is why the MSM airs the tapes of the murderer of those students of VT, to give his 'side', to 'understand' him.

What rational people do not understand is that you can never understand the irrational, you can only identify it as such.

Why do people vote for Democrats?

What reality are they in?

[Sam Gamgee]

Yeah, I bet that really freaks them out - to be fair apparently Ron Paul is a Christian (but so was Jimnah Carta). You make a good point - some liberals aren’t content just admitting they are liberals. Patton would have regarded them with disgust.

[MEGoody]

Paul suggested that the recent history of U.S. foreign policy endeavors overseas may have had something to do with terrorists' willingness to come to America, live here for several months, then give their lives to kill as many Americans as possible.

How recent, Ronnie?

[Sam Gamgee]

I am not interested in the Moslem point of view either, just America’s. I true isolationist wouldn’t care why someone attacked us - just that they did, and so what to do next.