During the “debate”, one of the other candidates (Pawlenty?) came after Ron Paul very hard on his “It’s none of our business” position on Iran. The format didn’t allow him to respond. Let me Channel Ron Paul for the purposes of this message:
“Don’t you understand, Iran is killing our soldiers in Iraq!”
RP: “I opposed getting involved in Iraq from the beginning. If it was up to me, there would be no US Soldiers in Iraq to kill”
“You’re an idiot – Iran has been at war with the United States since 1977!”
RP: “The reason the revolution happened in 1977 was the anger the Persians had for what we did. We in cooperation with the British led a coup to overthrow the fledgling representative government and replaced that with a the Shah of Iran, a western Puppet. The reason was the post war government wanted to renegotiate the rates that British Petroleum was giving Iran for the oil they pumped out”
So if Ron Paul does well in the Straw Poll, expect to hear this line of questioning. Channel the voice of Chris Matthews doing this interview
CM: “So you don’t think we should get involved in shutting down Iran’s Nuclear weapons program?”
RP: “Yes, that’s correct”
CM: “So you don’t support Israel?”
RP: “I support only one country – the United States. What Israel does or doesn’t do is up to them, not us.”
CM: “Oh, my God. When Hitler was putting Jews into the ovens in Auschwitz, would you have not tried to stop him?”
RP: “Yes, that’s correct. World War II was not about Jews in ovens, and I would not have been involved at all in the War in Europe. It was none of our business”
CM: “Oh my God! So you’re saying if you were standing at the Gates of Auschwitz, you would help herd the Jews into the death camps?”
RP: “But I wasn’t, so your question is just a hypothetical”
CM: “So what about the Killing Fields of Cambodia? Would you let millions of innocent people die?”
RP: “Well, isn’t that what we did anyhow? If we hadn’t assassinated the leader of South Vietnam and never sent in troops, the Killing Fields never would have happened”
CM: “You have no may of knowing that”
RP: “Neither do you”
CM: “So if WWII wasn’t about saving the Jews from death camps, are you saying we should never have gone to war with Germany?”
RP: “Yes, that’s correct. See previous answers. That was a war for Russia, England and France to fight among themselves – it was none of our business”
CM: “So you’re saying that when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we should have done nothing???”
RP: “If FDR hadn’t issued a naval blockade to prevent Japan from importing oil, Japan would not have attacked the United States”
CM: “You can’t know that for sure”
RP: “Neither can you”
CM: “Okay, enough of old history. When you say you oppose the Federal Reserve, isn’t that really just “code” for “The Jewish Bankers”?
RP: “I oppose having the US Dollar in the hands of private bankers who make up their own policy independent of the government. The Federal Reserve is not made up of “Jewish bankers”. Their race or religion has nothing to do with why I want an audit
CM: “So you probably don’t even support the UN going into countries like Somalia and Sudan and trying to feed starving people and stopping civil wars???”
RP: “Yes, that’s correct. I don’t think the US should have joined the UN and think we should get out of it, along with the IMF”
CM: “Oh, my God – what kind of a nut case are you??? What would it take for you to want the US to get involved in military action?”
RP: “Well, if the Mexican government sent troops up to the border of Texas and started to invade, we should fight against the Mexican army for invading our country”
CM: “I knew it – you’re a racist!”
Brace yourself.
I generally agree with Ron Paul on his non-interventionist philosophy. That’s where America’s roots are historically. It came unglued during WWI and WWII though…
But America’s roots are also in capitalism and unfettered markets (not to be confused with “free trade”). The elephant-in-the-living room question is that if the U.S. government doesn’t want to get involved in an overseas conflict, what limits should be placed on private companies so that their exports of goods to one side or the other doesn’t drag us into the conflict? If WWII were to happen today, how would we handle the BP subsidiaries (formerly Gulf and Amoco) in the U.S. that wanted to sell petroleum products to Britain? Would Boeing be permitted to sell commercial aircraft to both sides, aircraft that would likely be used for airlifts and troop movements? What about computers and communications equipment? How about exporting foodstuffs? Armies can’t march without adequate food. In WWII the British navy would have blocked any U.S. exports to Germany or Italy even if we’d been so inclined to attempt it. The fact that we were “selling” so many supplies to the British Commonwealth nations ultimately would have forced the Axis powers to attack US flagged ships headed for Europe or Asia. Ignoring the national tragedy and emotional impact, the Pearl Harbor attack simply initiated the unrestricted warfare that was inevitable unless the U.S. was prepared to enact very “un-Libertarian” and economically crippling trade restrictions so as to ensure our “perceived neutrality”.
I agree with you. I’m also conflicted about this. I want to agree with Ron Paul – but the United States has interests beyond our borders. We got dragged into the War of 1812 in part over the same issue. With France and England at war, each side would try to view shipments of goods from the US to the other country as “support” for their enemy. Much of the mission of the German u-boats was to sink merchant ships headed to Englsnd. Being an isolationist would mean that the US would not protect ships flying the American flag. Either British ships would have to carry the cargo and/or the shippers would have to fund their own navy to protect their ships.
What if Germany seized Americans when war started? Does the US have an obligation to protect Americans outside of the country, or is that their own fault for traveling outside the country?
I agree with Art — right down to being “conflicted.” Like it or not, the United States have vital interests world wide. And geopolitical vacuums, especially big, sudden ones, all but guarantee undesirable outcomes. Out of Paul’s points, on the other hand, I’m reminded of the fates of global empires past. That is, the very size and scope of interests represented weakness as well as strength. Germany, for example, stirred up trouble for the Brits and their interests in South Africa in WW-I, hoping to pull attention and resources away from the European front. Further back in history, the bigger Rome grew, the more there was to control and defend. In the end, it may truly come down to making Hobson’s choice for us (U.S.).
Quien es muy “Neville Chamberlain”? Ron Paul o Barack Obama?