Posted on 12/31/2007 6:57:53 AM PST by america4vr
I don't know if Paul was prepared. He certainly answered all of the questions.
When you tell the truth, you don't have to be prepared.
The fact that the US is forced by circumstance to deal with a suboptimal Pakistani leader underlines the fact that we are not giving orders, but simply playing with the hand we were dealt.
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.
If we were blindly supporting Musharraf, we would not be encouraging elections that could unseat him.
Our short term concern is to make sure that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal does not fall into Islamist hands and our long term concern is a Pakistan with free institutions.
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.
Sounds like a big claim with zero evidence. A rational interpretation is that Musharraf is afraid to push as hard as he should against terrorism in Pakistan because to really do the job effectively he would have to suspend constitutional guarantees he agreed to abide by, and might as a result provide the impetus to unseat his government.
It's a slap in the face to the US soldiers who have died in Afghanistan.
US soldiers in Afghanistan - including members of my family - would tell you how complicated it is even in Afghanistan with a committed anti-terrorist government to effect change.
It's not as simple as you think.
And Benazir Bhutto's words are not Scripture. Quoting her campaign rhetoric doesn't substitute for argument.
Unlike Musharraf, she had only spent a few months in Pakistan over the last decade.
And Thomas Jefferson then intervened in the Barbary Coast and concluded some entangling alliances.
Washington similarly urged that we must, 'Act for ourselves and not for others,' by forming an 'American character wholly free of foreign attachments.'"
And on whose behalf are we acting right now? What other country's interests instead of America's are we serving when we intervene in the Muslim world to safeguard our national interest?
So you would advocate the dissolution of America's intelligence services?
If your neighbor came into your house and started hitting on your wife, how would you feel?
In this strained analogy, what person/institution is playing the part of the neighbor's wife?
I’m not asking you to like RPaul or even telling you he’s right. But fair is fair, so here is the straw man:
“America can no more refuse to interact with other nations...”
Not wanting to subsidize foreign despots on my dime is not the same as refusing to interact. So it’s a straw mann argument.
Here’s the reductio:
“The inevitable consequence of Paul’s logic is that the US would refuse to recognize that there are any other sovereign nations...”
Come on.
“So you would advocate the dissolution of America’s intelligence services?”
No they should gather information, they should not try to pick winners in elections, or try to overthrow governments.
Yep. I predict others will be saying you need Thorazine.
Paul's program does not end with stopping foreign aid. It also includes withdrawing from the UN Security Council among other radical measures.
Come on.
By repudiating the UN Charter - the legal basis upon which international law is now established - this is the inevitable consequence.
Which governments have the CIA overthrown? Please cite specific examples.
If you continue to make sensible observations like this I predict others will be saying that you need Thorazine too.
Which governments have the CIA overthrown? Please cite specific examples.
Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d’%C3%A9tat
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/
Guatemala
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/index.html
Which governments have the CIA overthrown? Please cite specific examples.
I believe the CIA overthrew the government of Iran in 1953. That’s just off the top of my head.
cia was pretty instrumental in overthrowing the taliban in 2003.
(1) In point of fact, the Iranian government was overthrown by Muhammad Mossadeq, not by the US or the Shah.
(2) The government of Arbenz in Guatemala fell because of a revolt against Arbenz's unconstitutional seizure of absolute power. The CIA's favored successor did not take power.
A common piece of left-wing propaganda, but one that does not fit the historical facts.
I'm not sure if people realize what the CIA actually does. The CIA is not a magical malevolent force, but a government agency whose main purpose is gathering information.
More isolationist idiocy from the fusion candidate of the Libertarian left and the Nativist right. Among the real world rules of nationhood is the fact that you sometimes have to deal with scumbags and crooks if their short-term interests coincide with your own. You don’t have to get in bed with them, but sometimes you need to give them money for screwing your enemy.
Hard to believe you’re dragging the UN into this to use against Paul.
I like Ron Paul better than I like the UN.
The irony, of course, is that Paul supporters will disdain any kind of cooperative relationship with someone as unsavory as Musharraf while simultaneously defending to the hilt Paul's collaborative relationship with Stormfront, MoveOn.org and the 9/11 Truth Movement.
The UN, like death and taxes, is an external reality that has to be dealt with in an adult manner.
I like Ron Paul better than I like the UN.
I dislike them both equally at this point.
They've made it clear on several occasions. Such as this one.
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.