Skip to content

Why Ron Paul pt. 1- Foreign Policy and War

by on January 16, 2012

                Dear Readers,

I apologize for such a long vacation from the blogs and can think of no better way to get back into the fray then to write about my choice for president for 2012. Instead of writing a ten page diatribe incorporating foreign policy, domestic policy, monetary policy, and the like, I will focus on one at the time in order to not drown you dear reader in my silly ability to just go on and on and on. And with that- foreign policy:

                By supporting Ron Paul, many things can be said. First off, we don’t need to be the policeman of the world nor do we need to destroy all that we simply don’t like. From Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders through Obama’ s use of NATO in Libya, we have spent the last 120 or so years just beating the hell out of any and everybody with little to show from it but newly formed sects of hatred while still scratching our heads as to the why. Just as Woodrow Wilson ran on a ‘no-war’ ticket, Bush Jr. ran on a ‘humble conservatism’ arguing against ‘interventionist foreign policy’ and ‘nation building’, and Obama ran against pretty much everything Bush ever did. From Obama, we went from three wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, and the overall ‘war on terror’) to even more wars (Libya, Yemen, drones in Pakistan, etc.) without much showing for ‘America’s defense.’ The mainstream status quo statists (Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry) seem hell bent on stripping our liberties in the name of liberty and blowing up the Middle East and any other country in the name of protecting our way of life. Protecting our way of life, by the way, must include pseudo-molestation at the airports and the authority to kill the fourth and sixth amendment by sending American citizens to Gitmo because they are ‘suspected’ of doing wrong.

                With over 900 bases in over 130 countries, it has become apparent that the wonderful movie ‘Team America’ may in fact be more and more of a reality. Some have argued that our foreign policy has been a success due to the fact that we have yet to engage in a third world war- this is demonstrably silly and for simple reasons. It was our interventionist foreign policy that took us into WW1, our need (along with England and France) to blame someone for that horrible mistake led to WWII to which then the Cold War was about the only result as we helped Stalin defeat the Nazis. However, our hubris after WWII came with a cost. Japan did in fact work as a bulwark against the communist interest in Asia and within a decade or less after WWII we have the Korean Conflict and a communist China with the Vietnam War only to follow with many chances for Nixon and Kissinger to exert more of the ‘red scare’ silliness in South America as well. The simple notion of ‘blowback’ (the unintended consequences of covert missions), which has been reiterated to jingoist ears by Ron Paul is indicative of what we are living through now. Many actually think that our conflict with Iran began in 79’ with those nutty Ayatollahs coming to power- this is demonstrably false. Our conflict with Iran began in 53’ when we in fact overthrew a democratically elected leader. We actually think that Castro was just a radical who hated….whatever or that Hugo Chavez is nuts. These are leaders, Castro for example, who lived under a military dictatorship installed by the US who destroyed any sort of democracy that Cuba at one point had. Let me state emphatically that Castro is a terrible leader- but that’s not in question. The question is how do these people rise? Ayatollah’s, Castro’s, Mao’s, and Kim Ill Sun’s?

                This isn’t ‘blaming America’ or ‘America-bashing’ but simply an attempt to put our current situation in context. As Ann Coulter famously said at a recent CPAC meeting, regarding the answer to be ‘bombs,’ one must stop and just wonder what the hell is wrong with her. Now, you diehard neo-conservatives who scream ‘no appeasement, not another Chamberlin….’ stop being silly, for your insistence on Ron Paul being an ‘isolationist’ is absurd for based off your normative view of America’s foreign policy Canada is an isolationist country….would you make that claim?

                Now, under the Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief, yet it is Congress who declares war which is something mainstream politicians seem to forget. Sure, let’s stay in Vietnam for 15+years, let’s stay in Iraq for 100 years as John McCain famously said during the 2008 election and let’s use NATO (US providing overwhelming amount of technology, logistics, and finances) to invade Libya. Ron Paul, being the self-described Constitutionalist, seems to be the only one who really understands it at all as Mitt Romney recently pointed out in the last debate.  It is so interesting to hear warmongering  neoconservatives and hypocritical liberals quote the Constitution in speeches while crawling for every vote and book sell they can but when questioned on problematic legislation (Patriot Act, NDAA, etc.) they act like the Constitution was a mere bar napkin of suggestions to  be enforced only during times of peace and since the founders didn’t have the internet, cell phones, or nuclear technology- this document is kind of a fun to read in a high school US History class.

                The founders knew that time would advance along with standards of living, etc. for these were people who really read history, from Cicero through the England revolution of 1648- which is why they allowed a way to add on to the Constitution- which is still readily ignored by both sides on a continual basis.

                I am not a utopian wearing Birkenstocks waving a peace sign but I am not a jingoist who thinks that war is the solution because the last 100 yrs of history has proved otherwise when looked at from a perspective of fluid history- not a frozen period of time (i.e. what about Hitler?). Ron Paul who not only served his country honorably (unlike Newt the draft deferment candidate) but understands the rudimentary laws of geo-politics (contrary to Bush Jr. who never left the US before becoming President) and the Constitution (contrary to Obama who defended the NDAA in Liberty Hall where our Constitution lays), has the only conscionable policies to take us from constant war and the constant need to police the world.


From → Politics

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: