Posted on 12/31/2007 6:57:53 AM PST by america4vr
The conventional wisdom among presidential candidates is that the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has proved the importance of continued American meddling in that land. Both Republicans and Democrats are rushing to mumble incoherent platitudes before the cameras while several have even proclaimed their next big idea for how Pakistan ought to be run.
Democratic candidate Bill Richardson made his first headline in months by proclaiming that President Bush ought to give former General – now just "President" – Pervez Musharraf his pink slip. Most of the rest simply say we should "support democracy" there.
This "wisdom" of interference is so conventional that CNN's Wolf Blitzer expressed shock when Republican candidate Rep. Ron Paul of Texas said that the tragedy proved his case for nonintervention in the affairs of other nations. We should not, Paul said, either subsidize or work to undermine other governments because such policies invariably only empower our enemies.
But why should Blitzer have been shocked?
Benazir Bhutto herself thought this was so. In one of her last interviews, she told Parade magazine, "[The U.S.] policy of supporting dictatorship is breaking up my country. I now think al Qaeda can be marching on Islamabad in two to four years."
As Paul told David Shuster of MSNBC, "the murderers are 100 percent responsible" for what they have done, but we should not look at the events of this week in a vacuum.
The U.S. has poured tens of billions of dollars into Musharraf's dictatorship while he has failed to prevent the entrenchment of Qaeda radicals hiding out on the Afghan border, and numerous attacks by them, revealing the overall policy to be flawed and counterproductive.
(Excerpt) Read more at hnn.us ...
good post.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again now: I can hardly wait until the first wave of primaries are over, so we can finally relegate Paul to the dustbin of obscurity he so richly deserves.
The man is a loon. His appearance on MTP proved that. His eyes constantly shifting like he was battling the voices in his head, all the while getting tripped up on his own hypocritical stances on immigration and his (non)support of Reagan. If a candidate isn’t prepared for Tim Russert’s questions for goodness sakes, how in the HECK does anyone think he can lead this country?
Or does anyone here think he actually did GOOD on MTP?
What a bizarre digression.
If you have adult children, do you tell your adult children which sexual positions they are allowed to enjoy in the bedroom?
And it gets weirder.
Not knowing what dark part of your psyche I may have accidentally triggered, I will move on to less disturbing parts of your post.
What the US is doing in Pakistan is more bizarre. We're telling the adult children of other parents what they are allowed to do.
We are not telling anyone what to do. We are giving an ally of ours advice, as friends do.
Pakistanis don't pay US taxes. They have no representation in our government. But we are comfortable telling them how to run their country.
We are doing nothing of the kind.
It's madness and we'd NEVER accept that from some other country. What if France decided it was going to order us around? Would you be fine with that?
If our President believed that the President of France had (a) the USA's best interests at heart, (b) had important knowledge and expertise to impart and (c) was a dependable ally I am sure he would take advice from France's President into serious consideration.
No sovereign nation takes orders from any other sovereign nation. But they sometimes take advantage of an ally's resources and knowledge.
Why should eggheads in our government have more say in Pakistan's affairs than a Pakistani like Bhutto?
They never did. And Bhutto was a flawed human being like anyone else. When she did have power in Pakistan she abused it rather disgracefully.
One could have argued with Bhutto that the reason why Musharraf was in power in the first place was due to her and her husband's kleptocratic policies undermining the democratic process in Pakistan.
If Al-Qaeda ever marches on Islamabad, that is more her fault than Musharraf's or America's.
Paul goes beyond not wanting to send foreign aid.
He opposes any attempt by the US to affect another nation's internal or external policies or, as he calls it, "meddling."
Which would leave any ambassador or treaty more or less pointless.
Sometimes I question the wisdom of the appointees at State that make some of these decisions. Pakistan was a fledgling democracy. Right or wrong, we gave them a dictatorship. Now their populace hates us. Years ago, we supported the Shah in Iran. This contributed to the Iranians hating us. We kept the Saud Family in power. Saudia Arabians hate us. We armed & trained Al Qaeda to fight the Russians. Then we left the Afghanis at their mercy. Years ago we supported Saddam Hussein. He used his army to fight Iran for over 10 years in a bloody war. We essentially gave him carte blanche as long as he killed millions of Iranians every year. We even overlooked the USS Stark. Its no wonder the Iranians hate us.
I don’t think the arabs hate us because of our society or culture. I think they hate us because we keep crapping in their back yard.
Perhaps some of these decisions worked out in our best interest. Perhaps some didn’t. Many definitely had unintended consequences.
The US doesn’t need to be the world policeman. Recently North Korea exhibited nuclear ambitions. Many wanted to drag us into the middle of it. They would have had us invade N. Korea to disarm them. This would have been bloody, and would have caused the world to distrust us more. We told Asia to solve its own problems. The 6 nation talks were started and progress has been made. Its far from perfect, but better than other possible outcomes.
I watched him say it.
I wish I had the exact quote.
It's odd that no one else saw it.
Maybe they did see it but don't want to mention it.
Sorry to interrupt; but Connie Williams, wife of Walter, has passed away. The news is posted on a website blocked by FR, but it is true. Walter Williams subs for Rush on occasion. I wasn’t sure how to get this out to the posters here at FR...
Your argument is a combination straw man and reductio ad absurdum. Nice try though.
But often they turn out NOT to be OUR bums. Like Saddam.
If you think Ron Paul makes sense, follow the link to the website. Next to the article is a paid advertisement for ‘Historians for Obama’. And, btw, one of the authors is an assistant editor for antiwar.com. That’s justin raimondo’s website and includes more truther and 9/11 conspiracy theories than you can count. Justin got banned here because of his continuous the ‘Jews did it’ diatribes.
Now, just why should I place any credence in this article?
I haven’t seen him on TV much, just head his ideas.. if he is a crazy as everyone says I’m sure I could tell by watching him..... but..
honestly, Rudy and Fred and the other all seem pretty batty to me too.
We are lying with a dog in Pervez Musharraf and we are getting fleas. The US is doing more than just offering advice. We are supporting Musharraf and he's not someone we should be supporting because he's not supporting us. We are imposing our will on Pakistan. Musharraf's not trying to take out the terrorists in his country because those terrorists help him run the country the way he wants to run it. It's a slap in the face to the US soldiers who have died in Afghanistan.
That's not true at all. In Paul's own words:
"Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: 'Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.' Washington similarly urged that we must, 'Act for ourselves and not for others,' by forming an 'American character wholly free of foreign attachments.'"
Ron Paul is crazy!
Ron Paul is crazy!
It's neither, actually.
In the first place, you cannot reduce something which is already absurd to an absurdity.
Secondly, Ron Paul's stated belief that it would be his constitutional duty to unilaterally abrogate treaties and agreements with other nations if he were elected president shows that it is Ron Paul and not a straw man against whom I am arguing.
Although I can fully understand your inability to distinguish between Ron Paul and a straw man (they are remarkably identical to the untrained eye).
Giuliani makes little sense in a number of areas. I don't find Thompson to be "batty", but I have to admit I am underwhelmed.
“America can no more refuse to interact with other nations than human beings can refuse to interact with other human beings.”
Interact, yes. Send the CIA in to mess with other nations affairs, no. Trade, interact, make friends. If your neighbor came into your house and started hitting on your wife, how would you feel?
stop, stop. you are making too much sense.
Aw, how very sad. Prayers up for you Mr. Williams, may God comfort you and give you strength in the days ahead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.