Topic: Ron Paul
Why Ron Paul will not be President A critique of the great Ron Paul, and my explanation on why he will never be President.by Jay Wendt
(centrist)
Monday, November 2, 2009
I do admire and respect Ron Paul as perhaps one of America's greatest political figures and constitutional experts in America. In a different period of American history, he would have been one of our greatest Presidents. Although I am strongly in favor of much of his positions and admire him so, people must come to the reality that he will never become President of this great country. His position on one issue in particular is not compatible with the situation and the needs of the 21st Century, let alone the last ten years of the 20th.
On matters of Defense and Security, he is not realistic. A staunch advocate of civil liberties and a non-interventionist foreign policy has, unfortunately, no place in our modern world. Ron Paul's near utopian viewpoint on defense and security is no longer valid for the same reason the Telegraph is out of date; technology has made it impossible for us to ignore the horrors and clear threat that Islamic extremism presents to Western Society. In much of the Eastern Hemisphere, from Africa to Asia to be precise, the World is under increasingly attack by Islamic extremists (also know as Jihadists). I know that terrorism is as old as prostitution, however Jihadists are bent on one objective: Global Domination. Much like Hitler and the Nazis, these Jihadists are hell-bent on creating a global Islamic Empire, where all non-Muslims are either subjugated or exterminated. They are against all the freedoms this great land represents, and against the equality we give anyone regardless of their race, color, or creed. Such a threat cannot be ignored, for just like with the Nazis, we have to deal with them head-on before they can threaten Western Civilization. The blowback from not intervening in the world could and would be far greater then the historical blowback that Ron Paul references ever so frequently. As a man who has been to Bahrain and Dubai, I can honestly say that most Muslims most definitely not like what our country does in that part of the world and fully acknowledge that fact; but, I have never meet a Muslim in that part of the world who is not grateful for America's fight and involvement in the War on Terror. They love and admire how our society will treat anyone equally under the law, and how we do not judge based on race, color, or creed. They want their countries to become Arab versions of the USA, and they understand the threat that Jihadists pose.
So, while even some in the Muslim world support what we are doing, Ron Paul advocates a policy that could lead to growth and spread of Jihadism, the blowback from which is too frightening to imagine. For this reason, Ron Paul will never be President in our modern society.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jay Wendt only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jay Wendt is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-11-02 15:48:37
You overlook a number of painfully obvious facts.
(1) People should be fighting their own fights, where necessary. They should not be looking to a superpower to foot the bill in human lives and cash. Global domination by jihadists is only possible if the people they want to dominate expect others to fight their battles for them, while simultaneously appeasing them. I find it fascinating that those who advocate the Paul position are called "appeaser" when in fact it is the very same people whom the interventionists claim to be protecting who are the appeasers. Interventionism supports the real appeasement. Referring to non-interventionism as appeasement is a gross violation of language and logic. It creates a ready-made excuse for local tyrants to continue their tyranny with the support of the West. That's highly counter-productive.
(2) You also ignore the "why" of the jihadists. Contrary to popular myth, they aren't just brainless thugs, although they often behave like them. Their objectives are pretty clear: get the West out of the Middle East. If the U.S. (and its allies) removed itself in an orderly fashion on its own initiative from that region, while turning responsibility for the struggle against jihadists over to local authorities, it would dramatically take away the jihadists' reason for existence and undermine their support.
(3) As with most interventionists, you merely state that there would be negative consequences to withdrawal, but you're extremely lacking in any detail about those consequences. In other words, while we know for certain that there is blowback from intervention, we have no evidence to back the idea that withdrawal will also result in blowback. That's sheer speculation on your part.
(4) Most importantly of all, terrorists should never have been treated as if they were international players, to be dealt with as warriors. That only enhances their self-perception of righteousness. Rather, they should have been treated as criminals from the very beginning, and nothing more. U.S. policy has done a world of harm in this regard, although it's not too late to change. If Muslims want the jihadists brought down so badly, we should insist that they take the lead in doing so. It's not like the Middle East is too poor to afford it, after all!
I guess you can't be president unless you intend meddle in foreign affairs, remove elected officials from office, start revolutions, and install puppets.
Ron Paul is too simple minded to grasp the concept that me MUST control every other government, its empire or nothing. /sarcasm
So while there are many who read the Qur'an and pick that there must be a jizyah, and jihad against anything non Muslim, would there be that many intent on following through with their beliefs if we weren't in their country, telling their government what they must do and killing their families?
Just repeat without thinking: we are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.
So, You Would Take "Extremism" As The "Normative" for Your Argument To Succeed.
Those who would take the "Battle Of Force" rather than the "Battle Of Reason" would be your allies.
The will of the few is reason to invade the boarders of the many with your reasoning?
The "Get Them Before They Get Us" metality is flawed by "Unfounded Paranoia". Reichstag Fire 1933 is but one example.
Safety Does Not Come From Crushing Control, But By Consent Of MUTUAL BENIFIT. It is easier to influence by the path of the friend than to impose regiment by Compliance.
Friends Do Not Enable Self Destruction, Nor Allow Detriment To Their Own. Ron Paul's position is not "Passivity".
Your view that Ron Paul Doctrine would Secede From World Events is in error.
Posted By: It don\'t work that way...
Date: 2009-11-02 17:55:31
This is patently ridiculous. Leaving aside the question of interventionism in and of itself, Islamic jihadism is not what you think it is. 'Jihad' simply means to struggle, hence, giving alms to the poor is a jihad. Second, bin Laden and co. are not fighting to create a world Islamic Empire. Islam firmly holds that an offensive jihad is only permissible after a direct command from a central imam or caliphate. What they're doing is a defensive jihad, ousting the 'infidels' from their own land. It is our interventionism (including military bases on the Arabian peninsula) that caused this problem in the first place. It's sure as heck not going to fix it. If we weren't interfering with their politics and nations, anti-US Islamic terrorists would disappear faster than ice on a hot stove.
, George and Wilson had caused all of the imperial evils that caused most of the problems in the Middle East that let the likes of Hitler come to power.. You still had Stalin, Mao and the like... The historical basis is still open on the policies you mentioned but it will be difficult to make any of the policy makers heroes in my mind.. But then again Lincoln killed 860.000 Americans for railroad profits and to control cotton and was the most hated man of his century now a hero? Jim Crow was worse than slavery and every major country in the world abolished slavery without war. Your foreign policy of intervention is bad.. Your have to remember that Regan had economic pressures, Eastern Europe (Papal) pressures.. Regan Bush did some seriously bad policies that made the Afghanistan war religious. People seem to forget Noreiga, Granada, Death squads in El Salvador, arms to Contras.. I will agree with you on the point that Paul cannot be president but not the reason you state. Americans are not willing to think of themselves as imperialist, in fact Americans are not willing to think. The Neo-con Lukid party controls the mainstream media and education ideology despite being rejected by their populations.. I don’t claim to know the answers but certainly question the policies. It’s very Orwellian and I don’t mean in a 1984 way but more like "Homage to Catalonia" way.
I disagree with you. Regardless, if you think he will never be president, surely you have nothing to worry about. Unless you are trying to control the votes of those who disagree with your premise to begin with, which is pretty optimistic of you.
Maybe the author of the article above could educate the rest of us as to why so many other countries (like Canada, Australia, Sweden, Switerland, France, Spain, and Italy to name just a few), avoid these "jihadists" boogeymen the author seems so worried about. These other countries basically mind their own business and remarkably don't have suicide bombers flying into their building.
Jay, your drinking the coolade. It could be that what you see is blowback from US interventions. We spend our defense money at home, and trade with the world, i don't think there would be any serious threats.
For those who have criticized the my article, you should actually read history, rather then listen to what both the fringe and mainstream media say (the History Channel is far better anyway). Jihadism dates back to WW1, when the Ottoman Caliph declared Jihad on Britain, France, and Russia; at a time when the West was trying not to provoke the Ottoman's from entering the War. The Sultan/Caliph's agents spread their message of hate from Egypt to Central Asia. Although the House of Hashem and the Trucial States were important Arab-Muslim allies, all other Islamic players collaberated with the Ottoman's to undermind the west's influence and standing in the Islamic world. Even before WW2, the influence of this Jihad continued in the forms of the 1941 Golden Square Coup in Iraq, and Reza Khan's 1925 Coup in Iran.
Even before WW1, the Islamic Caliphate of the Ottoman's attempted to conquer Europe during the 14th century, bent on dominating the known world and spreading Islam. So, to argue that the recent Jihadist activity is a result of Western actions in the 20th century, then I must infer that you are both ignorant and naieve.
Also, to use the arguement against our intervertion in any conflict shows ignorance of American history; when the French, Spanish, and Dutch intervened on our behalf and helped us win our War of Independence. Intervening in world affairs is not only the responsble thing to do in certain situations, it is the moral thing to do.
What's the point of America intervening in foreign affairs if America is on the road to bankrupcy.
Who will help America then ?
It would be better for America to get it's financial house in order and then allow a referendum to take place (i.e. ask the people) if America should commit to a foreign entanglement. Remember, the government is meant to be working for the people and the people should be consulted during major issues.
America is a Republic and should first look after it's own before trying to be the "police" of the world.
The Corporate Oligarchs will never let a man become POTUS who won't do their bidding. Whether it's funding the Military Industrial Complex through endless war, continuing the jack-booting of America's own people through the War on Drugs, or promoting the stealing of wealth from We the People via the Federal Reserve (among many other gov’t subsidized financial instruments of entitlement and medieval era usury). Quite frankly, to be afraid of cave-dwelling bogeymen in far off lands is to be grossly distracted and ignorant from the real threat right here in our very own country.
Maybe you should take the time and see how foreign ownership of US assets are accelerating, albeit it isn’t necessarily a bad thing, although in this case it should be of great concern. Or, ask yourself how/why Hank Paulson got a special “waiver” to engage in activities which are blatant conflicts of interest. Don't forget Geithner, either. This financial fiasco would have made Mussolini blush if you consider how Hank got rid of his competition, never mind the fact about this absolutely insane and gigantic quadrillion dollar plus derivatives bubble. Of course, there's religious extremists to worry about you say.
So, who's going to pay for these endless wars? China? You want to tax Americans even more money? Cause ultimately we won't be able to pay for these wars indefinitely. And if history says anything about Afghanistan (Vietnamistan), we're doomed to go into the same imperial graveyard the rest have fallen into. Since our currency is already losing its reserve status, just send our whole nation into the hole so you can sleep at night! When you consider that peanut allergies, accident causing deer, and lightening strikes have killed about as many Americans as terrorists have had since the 60's, maybe we should spend more money trying to fight that "Axis of Evil" deer too?
Don't look at the men behind the curtain, we've got the War on Terror to fight!
Historically, foreign companies have had interests and subsideries in the US, and have historically had influence in American affairs. For example, the American drug makers Merck and Bayer were before WW1 subsideries of German drug companies that were nationalized. So the trend of foreign ownership of American companies is a return to the pre-WW1 historical trend.
As for the arguement, "What's the point of America intervening in foreign affairs if America is on the road to bankrupcy," you have to remember that France was on the verge of bankruptcy and ultimately did go bankrupt (one of the leading causes of the French Revolution). Even Spain, which at the time was one of the least financially endowed nations, aided our revolution. So to argue against intervention due to financial matters is, again, ignorant and naieve.
As for what Integr8d referenced (which I am to assume regards Al-Qaeda in Chechnya), there have been Islamic terrorists in Russia dating as far back as Russo-Turkish War, when Chechnyan Muslims rebelled against Russia. So, clearly you should to more research.
Posted By: David Rairigh
Date: 2009-11-03 09:20:22
Ron Paul is already my president.
I have to say, I'm tired of the argument that Islamic Jihadists are such a huge danger to our Country. By any metric our own government is much more of a danger than any jihadist could ever hope to be.
I also think that jihadism dates a little further back then WW1, like all the way back to the Crusades...
A few thugs in caves do not a worldwide domination make. The "fear" of Al Qaeda is created and sustained by the military/industrial complex, with their Trotskyite neocon choir section helping the fearmongering.
Jay, you are obviously learned and articulate. You are also dead wrong. We won't even get into the issue that preventative war is illegal and immoral.
The most dangerous terrorists are marxists/socialists hiding behind the mask of Islam (Think Arafat and al Zawahiri). They get a double win this way. Cover for themselves and scorn for a religion and Sharia Law system that forbids the taking of interest (riba/usury) on loans.
The FED and its fellow central bankers running our interest-bearing, debt-based economy cannot tolerate the "no interest allowed" challenge of Islam. The two systems are wholly incompatible. One or the other has to loose.
I say END THE FED and their interest bearing fiat money system. Islam is not the greatest threat to my freedom.
The War in Afghanistan is not and never was preventative. We were attacked by bin Laden's organization based in Afghanistan, and the Taliban refused to turn him over, and naturally we invaded due to the then Afghan government's refusal to cooperate; to even infer that Afghanistan was a preventative war is beyond sanity and a sign of how ignorant you are.
As for Al-Qaeda, it is a data-base (which is the actual translation); rather then a proper organization, this one is a list of groups and organizations willing to aide in the destruction on Western civilization. There is no central leadership, it is essentially a terrorist franchise with a handful of requirements. So a big scare SPECTOR-seque organization it is not; rather a scarier, decentralized organization where all you need is weapons, explosives, the Koran, and a willingness to kill. Imagine McDonalds, only with terrorists. Again, arguing otherwise is a sign of ignorance.
Posted By: David Rairigh
Date: 2009-11-03 14:14:00
Sorry Mr Wendt,
We went into Afghanistan for a pipeline. The Taliban offered to give us Osama if we showed proof that he was involved in 9-11. Bush refused to even discuss it. Our government is not now nor has it rarely been as pure as the driven snow.
Jay your Jihadism dates back to WW1 may or may not be true but my understanding is that the intervention of British Petroleum and aggravation cause by Clemenceau, George and Wilson at Versailles to support British imperialism is exactly the cause of blowback. These guys created the nation states in the Middle East and punished Germany on a war that was a stalemate. In effect if you can educate people on cause and effect of moral hazard. As Sun Tzu say you really need to take the high ground. We did put in brutal reign in Saudi Arabia and the hijackers were trained in Florida and were Saudi, Did we attack either one of those two places? The liguinistics are important to understand in collectivism propaganda.. an example is sanctions when in actuality it is a siege that hurts the disadvantaged and give more motivation to leaders to play blame game.. It may be my education that limits me in that I came of age at the end of the false flag mess in Vietnam.. No Jay the Jihadism is a power induced education brainwashing.. Heck even my Jesuit education (another power induced education brainwashing) admitted that for there war and Papal power struggles. My religion is really getting stronger “too bad it’s pretty much limited to Ecclesiastes ( man to be inherently \\\"vain\\\", \\\"futile\\\", \\\"empty\\\", \\\"meaningless\\\", \\\"temporary\\\", \\\"transitory\\\", or \\\"fleeting,\\\" depending on translation, as the lives of both wise and foolish men end in death). It may be a crazy notion that in an information age we can stop this warfare mentality that has been going preceding the crusades. .. Paul should be elected for the children
An oil pipeline through a country nearly as mountainous as Switzerland and 4 times the size with limited infrastructure. That would take the same amount of effort as building a two-lane highway from Los Angeles to Hawaii. To even suggest that we went in for an oil pipeline that would cost trillions of dollars to produce is absolutely idiotic.
"That the intervention of British Petroleum and aggravation cause by Clemenceau, George and Wilson at Versailles to support British imperialism is exactly the cause of blowback." One, the British already controlled the Trucial States (the modern UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain), Yeman, Kuwait, and near economic control over Iran before the start of WW1; so the arguement that BP wanted to take over Iraq for it's oil when it contolled most of the world's oil supply is ridiculous. Second of all, the Ottoman's declared War and Jihad against the Allies, without provocation.
As for the Saudi's, since the 18th Century they were considered Terrorists and rebels even to the Ottomans. And we did not install the Saudis, rather they overthrew the Hashemite rulers the West had supported. Again, your lack of knowledge on these facts are a sign of ignorance
Posted By: David Rairigh
Date: 2009-11-03 21:34:20
And a quick search will reveal that while Alaska topography and Afghanistan topography both show similar tendencies for central mountainous areas Afghanistan has very favorable flatlands in the northwest and sweeping westward and south. Putting a pipeline will be hard and expensive but not even our recent and current presidents could get the price up to a trillion dollars.
I agree with your conclusion, but not for the same reasons you do Jay Wendt. It is true, media shapes news and if this is representative of your profession, we are in tough times, likely never to elect anyone who can put us back on track to accountability and transparency in Washington.
There are some truths that are universal, self-evident and timeless. This article is a product of a bad educational system and that is very unfortunate.... for us.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
