Ron Paul's "noninterventionism" fraud

Bidinotto Blog & The New Individualist ^

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Oh sure, the constitution is full of passages about the virtues of surrendering to terrorists and other purveyors of atrocities.

If you want to see the effects of noninterventionism, look no farther than WORLD WAR II. 40 million people died because everybody not directly involved looked the other way until the scum came looking for them!

[traviskicks]

There is an over riding reason why I can’t vote for RP... I’m a Christian and I believe that America has an obligation to support Israel. RP would end that.

FYI:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block88.html

[Halgr]

Yeah I think Lew Posts here....LOL

I don’t see the world the way Lew does....sorry

[traviskicks]

It’s not written by Lew, it’s written by some guy I’d never heard of that happened to be on that website, but it is a good analysis of our foreign aid problems and the way we hold back Israel, by preventing her from dealing with the terrorist problem and funding ME dictators etc..

[Halgr]

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.

Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.

It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

— President John Adams, 1798

---

Can Ron Paul reverse the direction that America and Israel are heading....

No.

[Dr. Frank fan]

In other words, even though the US isn’t located anywhere near the Middle East, American boys must continue to die in some Middle-Eastern hellhole because .... what was the reason again? Oh yeah, so the CFR globalists can continue their worldwide agenda. Of course.

The US isn't located anywhere near Germany or Japan either. Your argument-from-location is equally valid against U.S. involvement in World War 2.

Nor is the US located anywhere near the parts of Afghanistan where Al Qaeda trained the 9/11 hijackers. I guess that means we were safe from them and would have had no business intervening there either had the opportunity arose.

The ramifications of this logic are fascinating to think through.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Did Dr. Paul, per the quote in the May 15th debate, imply that U.S. is to blame for 9/11?

I don't know about that, but in my view he did something worse in the Youtube debate: he implicitly declared that Saudi Arabia somehow belonged to Al Qaeda.

"(Al-Qaeda) want to come here ... because of our military base in Saudi Arabia," Paul retorted. "They come here because we're occupying their country just as we would object if they occupied our country," he added.

(emph. mine)

Let's review: Al Qaeda, an international, terrorist organization, which enjoys nothing approximating any sort of democratic legitimacy whatsoever - and which contains people from Egypt, Yemen, Afghanistan, and presumably many other countries - commits a terror act. Paul's summary of their motive: "because we're occupying their country". By which he means....Saudi Arabia.

In short, Ron Paul has rhetorically awarded Saudi Arabia to Al Qaeda. He considers it "their" country now.

I have no problem with examination of cause and effect, accounting of motive. But this is crazy talk. Saudi Arabia is not "their country" anymore than America is "Timothy McVeigh's country", and someone who seems to instinctively concede the claims of mass murderers as if their mass murdering alone gives their crazy claims greater weight really has no business being the chief executive.

There is no dispute that one of the reasons that motivated young hotheads to join Al Qaeda and blow things up is "because the United States has troops in the holy land". Yes, indeed, that was the motive for some of them - just as David Berkowitz's motive for murdering young couples was that a talking dog said "Son of Sam" (or something).

But simply identifying the motive is not an argument for anything. The United States contracted with the government of Saudi Arabia for the latter's defense. Within Ron Paul's own philosophy - of national sovereignty and freedom of contract - this should be perfectly acceptable. Al Qaeda's "grievance" against the U.S. for doing this was therefore completely unjustified and not worth the spittle it cost them to spew it. It is bad enough for Ron Paul, a supposed libertarian, not to recognize the violation of his own supposed principles he commits when he essentially encourages backing down to the demands of crazy, unjustified people. But to come out and concede the point of these crazy morons, and blithely refer to Saudi Arabia as "their country", is reprehensible.

Another interpretation of this statement, I suppose, is that by "their country" Ron Paul merely meant "the Arabs", or "the Muslims", or whatever - because, perhaps, he can't tell them apart. But this would not exactly reflect any better on the man.

Why does Ron Paul believe that Al Qaeda speaks for Saudi Arabia? for Arabs in general? for Muslims in general? (Which is it?)

Is it because they kill people? Is that it?

I'd really like to understand what he meant.

[Dr. Frank fan]

When FReepers came out against Clinton's war in Kosovo, and his other military actions, were we "blaming America" or were we disagreeing with Mr. Slick's foreign policy?

What Paul is doing is not merely "opposing military action", he is justifying the attacks of our enemies as having, in some cases, rational explanations that put us in the wrong. Not the same thing. Anyway, the "military action" already took place and is a historical event now, so there'd be nothing to "oppose" per se, so what would the controversy even be about if that's all Paul were doing?

That said, there were people against the Kosovo campaign who did so in a pretty blame-America way, too. Many of them on FR. I seem to recall charges bandied about that Clinton/the UN/someone wanted to snatch a silver mine in Kosovo (or something).

I myself may have even made such posts at the time, I don't remember :) Everyone's capable of letting politics cloud their judgment.

One thing I'll say in Paul's is that I don't think that's what he's been doing (playing politics, or just saying things to win an election, etc). Not at all. He strikes me as remarkably consistent and sincere. It's just that the thinking about which he's consistent, is seriously misguided in this case. (On many/most issues, I think he's great)

[Dr. Frank fan]

Wars are DECLared against nations.

Where is it written that wars can only be declared against nation-states?

[DugwayDuke]

“Dr. Paul doesn’t share the views of Alex Jones or Stormfront.”

The point is that Stormfront shares the views of Ron Paul. (I assume Stormfront still has the Ron Paul for President Banner up.)

[DugwayDuke]

“Alex Jones’ views are irrelevant. Paul doesn’t agree with him. He is a nationally-syndicated radio host which means that he’s media just like Savage & Rush are. He’s not some bug-eyed guy transmitting over a ham radio in his basement.”

If you think Alex Jones is not a ‘bug eyed guy’, then you should visit his website. He’s got an ‘archive’ for every ‘bug eyed’ conspiracist theory there is from the Bohemian grove, the illuminati, free masonry, to the coming gulag in America.

[Turret Gunner A20]

Where is it written that wars can only be declared against nation-states?

That is a good question, so let me answer it with one. In view of the fact tht we are not waging this war against a specific named nation; and. in view of the fact that we are fighting against several bands of butchers from several different nations in several different locations around the world, tell us specifically against whom Congress would declare said war?

Or are you for our troops tucking their tails between their legs letting those butchers run wild all over the world, in cluning in the United States, because we don't have a special rogue nation to declare war on?

[Turret Gunner A20]

... including in the United States ....

[Dr. Frank fan]

In view of the fact tht we are not waging this war against a specific named nation; and. in view of the fact that we are fighting against several bands of butchers from several different nations in several different locations around the world, tell us specifically against whom Congress would declare said war?

To my knowledge there are effectively 2 war powers resolutions currently in force.

The first one names "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons".

The second one names "Iraq".

So that is, literally, the answer to your question. My earlier point stands, nowhere is it written that war can only be declared against nation-states. Indeed, we are living through a counterexample.

Or are you for our troops tucking their tails between their legs letting those butchers run wild all over the world, in cluning in the United States, because we don't have a special rogue nation to declare war on?

Wait, what?

No, I am not for that thing you said.

[lormand]

"I'm sorry you feel slighted...will it make you feel better if I call you a real idiot?"

I actually feed off of name calling from Al Qaeda dupes.

It makes me feel important, so flame away Mohammed.

Besides, my tagline hints at another Freeper who harbors the same feelings I have about Ron Paul.

I suppose you want associate him with "idiots" as well?

[lormand]

"So someone who’s been here longer that you is now an interloper? You’re way too full of yourself."

Interloping is not time sensitive.

[Allegra]

And how about what was said to Allegra by one certain paulbot?

You mean the one who told me to f*** off? Or the ones who call me a war profiteer?

I get all kinds of classless freaks....and they're all paultards. LOL

[MEGoody]

There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant policy of intervention around the world.

Sure, just as there would be long-term consequences or blowback from a policy of non-intervention. The key is, make you best guess as to which is the least dangerous and go that route.

[Darksheare]

That’d be the one.

[Tolik]

Please forgive me for a long excerpt from even longer article. I find the argument against non-interventionism here very compelling. My other favorite point is also spelled out perfectly: "Only individuals have rights or "sovereignty"; and only those governments that recognize the individual rights of their own people have any legitimate claims to exist. Dictatorships thus have no "rights" or "sovereignty." 

---

Robert James Bidinotto:

 

... Dr. Paul ... has become the nation's foremost proponent of a foreign policy of U.S. "noninterventionism." This view holds that past American policies abroad have been immorally aggressive against other nations, provoking them to "react" against us in understandable, if not always justifiable, ways. By this interpretation of history, which parallels that of the communists and Islamists, America has been the great disturber of international peace. We are ever creating enemies where none really existed before. We did it during the Cold War; we've done it in the Middle East; we're continuing to do it today.

Dr. Paul's libertarian prescription? If only we'd stop meddling in the "internal affairs" of other nations and bring our troops home, the world would be a better, safer, healthier place. Al Qaeda and other terrorists, having no further reasons to hate us, would either become peaceful or aim their aggressions elsewhere.

... The same sort of arguments advanced by many libertarians, such as Rep. Paul, to "explain" the anti-American actions of foreign terrorists, also have been offered by liberals to "explain" the heinous acts of common criminals. Read any sociology or criminology text, and you'll find endless laundry lists of "causal explanations" for crime: poverty, neglect, poor parenting, lousy schools, poor "socialization," inadequate pre-natal care, hunger, disease, bullying, racism, police brutality, social stigmatizing, untreated psychological disorders, victimless-crime laws...you name it.

And in both cases -- foreign and domestic -- it's always American culture, society, and/or policies that are the toxic "root causes" underlying the actions of those who attack us.

... You may remember that during the Cold War, precisely the same sort of "explanations" were offered by liberals and, later, by left-libertarians such as Murray Rothbard to lay the blame for Communist aggression at the West's (especially America's) doorstep. It was our imperialist provocations around the world that were "driving" the Soviet bloc to "respond" by conquering and butchering millions, building weapons of mass destruction, constructing the Berlin Wall, etc. It was our economic and cultural "imperialism" that was driving indigenous peoples everywhere into the arms of the communists.

I defy anyone to draw a rational, meaningful distinction between such "explanations" for criminal or terrorist aggression, and "excuses" for it.

... Just as I reject the liberal "excuse-making industry" that denies volition and rationalizes the acts of criminals, I am totally fed up with the disgraceful foreign-policy perspectives of those libertarians who portray the United States as the causal agent of every evil on earth -- thus rationalizing the atrocities of foreign terrorists and despots.

... 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."

The only "moral" alternative they imply, therefore, is a de facto, hunkered-down pacifism: a steady retreat by the U.S. from any interactions in the world -- lest we diss some backwater bully, cross his arbitrarily declared boundary lines, offend him for his subjective notions of religious or cultural blasphemy, or thwart his laughable claims of "national sovereignty."

Part of the sloppy thinking at the root of "noninterventionist" lunacy is the tacit equation of individual rights with "national sovereignty" -- and also the equation of "economic interventionism" (against peaceful individuals) with "political interventionism" (against despotic regimes). Philosophically, these twin equations are completely bogus.

Only individuals have rights or "sovereignty"; and only those governments that recognize the individual rights of their own people have any legitimate claims to exist. Dictatorships thus have no "rights" or "sovereignty." Likewise, the concept of economic "interventionism" -- developed by the Austrian school of economics to describe coercive governmental interference with free individuals in the marketplace -- cannot be equated with political "interventionism" against governments, especially against dictatorships.

... National defense today requires the ability and willingness to project credible power globally, in direct protection of the very trade, travel, communications, and contacts among peoples that Ron Paul and many other libertarians declare to be the pillars of international relations and peace.

Without the forward projection of U.S. military power -- through foreign bases (which implies alliances), naval-carrier battle groups, special ops forces, advanced military aircraft, and first-rate intelligence agencies (which means an effective CIA, NSA, etc.) -- the "foreign-trade-and-travel" model of foreign policy prescribed by Dr. Paul and many libertarians would be revealed for the ridiculous fantasy it is.

---

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.