Paul is blunt about this, to be sure. I'd rather hear it spoken by someone who has demonstrated respect for individual liberty and accountability throughout his career as a congressman than from a mealymouthed peacemaker who has no sense of the real world.
I don't think anyone can realistically and accurately assess what will happen in Iraq down the road. How long do we stay? Indefinitely? What do we expect from this venture? What's to prevent the freedom-loving people of Iraq from immigrating to the USA? Oh yeah. Closed border.
Should we really think a few hundred Al Qaeda fanatics will be relevant in a land of millions who despise their disregard for innocent human life, whether or not our troops are present? I reckon the news media would like to give them power they don't have or deserve, but that's about it.
The 9/11 attacks give rise to fears that may not be founded upon reality. Yes, they were well-planned, devastating, humiliating, and infuriating. The typical reaction would be to address them without asking hard questions. Ron Paul at least has the fearlessness to ask them.
Look at Al Qaeda's statements. Would they lie when expressing their reason for ill will? If it is world domination by Islam they seek, it just ain't gonna happen, Ron Paul or not.
But let's suppose we walk into someone else's life and tell them how to live it. They tell us, in so many words, to go away. But we don't like what we hear, so we stay anyway. We're bigger and better, after all. After so many attempts at saying, "Go away" with no result other than a more intrusive presence, there comes a response we may not like.
Now, we can pretend the response was totally unprovoked. And that is essentially what folks are doing who blather "Blame America first" as an excuse to avoid asking what caused the response. In this case it was not a nebulous principle like "freedom", but a physical, regulatory, culturally repulsive presence among people who ought to be allowed to determine for themselves how they want to live their lives.
Individually speaking, if I am invited to the home of someone who practices a faith other than mine, and I accept the invitation, I had better be willing to 1.) accept whatever stipulations they might place on me as I enter their home, or 2.) be ready and willing to leave if their stipulations prove too burdensome. It's just the reasonable way to be.
If we force other peoples to accept our liberties, we're not really granting them liberty, are we? Or are we? And this is not to say that our influence in world affairs has been wholly unsalutary. In general we have done much good in many places. But let us proceed with caution and high regard for differences between ourselves and others.
I don’t think anyone can realistically and accurately assess what will happen in Iraq down the road. How long do we stay? Indefinitely? What do we expect from this venture? What’s to prevent the freedom-loving people of Iraq from immigrating to the USA? Oh yeah. Closed border.
>>>>>We’ve been in Germany and Japan for an awful long time, but I can’t imagine what either place would be like now had we left too early. Perhaps soviet, perhaps worse, but NOT better by any stretch. IN FACT we always hear WW2 was OUR fault because we left too soon after WW1 !!!!
Again, I imagine they won’t WANT to immigrate if they feel safer at home!
But let’s suppose we walk into someone else’s life and tell them how to live it. They tell us, in so many words, to go away. But we don’t like what we hear, so we stay anyway. We’re bigger and better, after all. After so many attempts at saying, “Go away” with no result other than a more intrusive presence, there comes a response we may not like.
>>>>>I don’t get the impression most Iraqis are telling us to go away. Now once they’re secure, sure, and I’d agree that once they have control we go home, but to pull out now when they’re not even remotely ready is absurd.
Now, we can pretend the response was totally unprovoked. And that is essentially what folks are doing who blather “Blame America first” as an excuse to avoid asking what caused the response. In this case it was not a nebulous principle like “freedom”, but a physical, regulatory, culturally repulsive presence among people who ought to be allowed to determine for themselves how they want to live their lives.
>>>>>Replace al-qaeda with nazi and see if any of that makes sense to you. I can’t imagine Iraqis “wanting to live their lives that way” with average Iraqis disappearing, tortured, raped etc. Kurds, shias, sunnis...first under Saddam then targeted by al-qaeda, with Iran waiting in the wings to pounce. IF we’re too “regulatory” and “culturally repulsive”, MY GOD what would you call Saddam’s rule? I HOPE you’re not implying the Iraqis were actually comfy with that!
IN FACT you make a better argument for nazi Germany because for the most part the Gestapo came and got communists, Jews, gypsies, the handicapped etc. The average German merely turned a blind eye. So yeah, a few fanatical al-qaeda thugs can indeed terrorize an entire country! A whole continent, several continents, over half the world in fact just 60-70 years ago! It’s happened before. And to assert people ANYWHERE in the world being under thug rule see it as self-determination is also absurd.
Look at Al Qaeda’s statements. Would they lie when expressing their reason for ill will? If it is world domination by Islam they seek, it just ain’t gonna happen, Ron Paul or not.
>>>>>>You really think they’ll tell the truth? It won’t happen when people stand up to them. Wishing them away hasn’t worked, history has proven over and over that approach is the very definition of abject failure.
Also, to assert they’ll just go home, let alone somehow stay home and aren’t interested in world domination proves you’re not listening to them afterall. Let alone paying attention to Europe. Where isolationism and turning blind eyes to other’s sufferings tend to explode all over the world stage.