No, we just picked the wrong horse in a two horse race.
By Ron Paul's reasoning, and by extrapolation I presume your's as well, we wouldn't have intervened in the Berlin Airlift because we shouldn't have "picked a side".
When you are are the world's sole superpower, and the beacon of freedom for fledgling Democracies, when you don't pick a side, you're still picking a side.
There is a lot of accuracy in that summation. The oriental philosophers believed that even the absence of taking an action (a choice, a direction) was, in and of itself, an action.
That is a conundrum from which one cannot retreat, a question on which we cannot demurr.
Stated differently by a Westerner, “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of crisis, maintained their neutrality.”
Ron Paul does have his principles and on some of them, he may well be absolutely correct. On this and several other issues he is absurdly wrong, and resembles nothing and no one so much as an ostrich, with its stereotypical head in the sand.
Being near-totally isolationist in this day and age is utterly unworkable.
We have treaties and military alliances with other nations; we conduct trade with other nations, we buy the majority of our oil and gas from Canada when we should be producing the majority of it for ourselves, and flooding the world market with it to reduce the market price and make capitalism more practicable for struggling nations.
We are a net food exporter that is not far enough away from regulations and crises that would turn us into a net food importer overnight.
We have trade imbalances with various nations and exhorbitant quantities of our bonds owned by other nations.
Therefore we have vital national interests that exist outside of our nation, and we cannot afford the kind of well intentioned, but foolish naivete espoused by Ron Paul for a foreign policy.
Even if we began terminating all of our alliances, concluding our mutual trade agreements and taking other steps to facilitate the dream world that Ron Paul imagines America once lived in, it would still be not less than 5 and perhaps more than 10 years before we could be on our own in those terms.
Even then, we would still need a solution to creating food and energy independence (other than summarily executing all meddlesome, obstructionist environmentalist radicals and liberals) for the USA.
By Paul’s reasoning we either screwed up in supporting Chiang Kai Shek, or else we did not support him strongly enough?!
We screwed up in not leaving Cuba completely alone, or by not going at them full-force...?
Reagan should never have engaged Russia/USSR over Poland, E. Germany, Hungary...never spent dime one on Grenada...
By Paul’s thinking, Germany would have simply left the Jews languishing in the camps had we not entered the war...instead of committing genocide?
Which is it? I am not at all certain any of the Paulistas really know, and I am even less sure I want the old Doctor himself to try and explain.
One thing I have yet to see anyone on this thread on either side point out is that, when last polled, the people of Iran (who desperately want to be ‘Persia’ again) had a high positive opinion of the United States and its people - higher than our own American citizens have of their homeland and their neighbors. They envy our freedom, our lifestyles and our ability to choose so much for ourselves!
This is in spite of a nonstop campaign by the militant Islamists, (ongoing for more than 30 years) to convince the everyday Iranian that America and everyone who dwells there - are the great satan or worse.
Which direction may more endear us further to this everyday Iranian poll respondent?
To at least condemn the actions of the repressive government which just got done lying to him about their election, and blatantly stealing his vote, his hope, his right to self-determination, thus persuading him that he is not invisible in the world?
Or to remain silent, distant, and enigmatic - leaving him to guess at whether anyone in the USA really cares anymore?
Speaking out to at least condemn this theft - and/or the brutality used in an effort to maintain the veneer of legitimacy of the mullahs’ government - does not imply subsequent military action by the US is pending.
It is just a recognition by the US that the bad act has occurred.
With zer0bambi in office, we all know, after all - that even if the Iranian government launched a nuclear missile directly at the US, Pres—ent zer0 Hussein would not respond courageously definitively, or without equivocation.
He would dither once again about the US “history” with Iran, make apologies for our intervention vis-a-vis Mossadegh, acknowledge the frustration of their government with our past interventions as being the motivating factor. and promise that we would not do it again.
He hates his “own” country, and that’s how he “rolls”
We’re on our own - very much so.
A.A.C.