So Who Is Ron Paul, Part 1.5

Answer: Because those countries haven't been illegally intervening in muslim countries for the past 50 years and generally pissing people off.

You say: "Unfortunately, his views do not reflect the fact that "over there" applies whether we are "over there" for just or unjust reasons, and even applies if we had gone to Afghanistan only to target Al Qaeda and bin Laden and not the Taliban"

But what is a "just reason"? That we are retaliating for 9/11? The terrorists attacked the U.S. in retaliation for what they considered "just reasons". What is "just" depends on which side you are on. The natural human response when you have been attacked or wronged is to "just"ify retaliation.

Continuing to escalate such a feud is a short-sighted knee-jerk reaction. Where does it stop? When everyone is dead?

No, the wiser course is to stay out of other countries' affairs in the first place.

The argument that "we are already there, so we must finish the job is also silly". You are saying that in fact two wrongs DO make a right. Sorry, I don't agree.

Free trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Ron Paul would roll you up and smoke you, he's wayyy above your weight class as far as intellectual sparring goes.

Funny, you start off by complaining you were accused of setting up a straw man, then you proceed to set up yet ANOTHER straw man in this piece! Where do you ever see, hear, or read Ron Paul saying, "We should set foreign policy solely on what the blowback could be." And why do you automatically assume it is the role of the U.S. government to save the lives of people in Kosovo? Do you think Serbians or Croatians would volunteer by the thousands to fly over here and help us in a crisis? I seriously doubt it. It is not our responsibility to take care f the entire world. It is not financially possible. We are now 9 Trillion dollars in debt because America has been duped into believing it is our duty to make all countries overseas viable, thriving markets for large corporations. We need to take care of our own country and get our house back in order before we go adventuring around the world. Our dollar is in a very precarious position due to oil, and we better figure out how to handle the looming monetary crisis before it's too late. Dr. Paul is the only candidate addressing the problem.

I still think you have it wrong. Paul did not say to listen to them in terms of using their wishes to define our foreign policy, he said listen to them when they talk about why they attacked us. Paul's was speaking specifically about the 9/11 attack.

Again, Paul never said he would not go to war. He said if we are going to war it needs to be legal. We have not had a legal war since WWII. (This incidentally is the last war we can say we actually won.)

Stop speculating on Paul's views and read them. You can find them all on www.house.gov

...when Ron Paul listens to terrorists he acts by considering their viewpoints in foreign policy...
Not exactly. When Ron Paul listens to terrorists he adds that to other data that suggests that bad foreign policy and bad secret operations increase the risk of terrorism and other harm to Americans and will consider that as a practical aspect of intervention anywhere in the world. I would assume that that practical aspect is added to what is constitutional and what is right.

America must define its policy on its terms, not on the terrorist's terms.
Exactly! Those terms should be these: do right, abide by the constitution, keep costs down and minimize risks. You are not that far from agreeing with Paul.

...he has to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan to prove that his non-interventionist policies work.
No, go back to your previous statement, "America must define its policy on its terms...." Other countries cannot define what nonintervention means for the US. Ron Paul favors strong defense. He also favors finding alternatives to war. Withdrawal from Afghanistan depends on its own merits. This is not saying Paul would favor it or not, this only says that nonintervention does not require it.

And even with Iran in 1953, were our actions wrong because of the blowback from the Iranians, or because we overthrew a democratically elected government with our actions?
The US was wrong for reasons closer to the latter (and for other reasons), but both are considerations. That is, besides the consideration of right and wrong (which is enough in my book), there are considerations of risk. The US has a poor track record of intervention, what might look like right to you might turn our to be quite wrong and have blowback. The best right is nonintervention and it minimizes risk as an extra benefit.

I do have concerns about anthropomorphizing the state, but this comment is already long.

The one thing I can say about young people is that they do not know the meaning of respect.

Out of all the candidates, can you actually respect any besides Ron Paul. I could not....but then again, I am not you.

Thanks,

Stewart
Mississippi

Um....Over There actually means "Saudi Arabia." Osama is pissed off because we have a base there AND support Israel. It's like the tobacco lobby....they support both the D and R parties because no matter who wins, they will do their bidding in Congress.

So, Osama is upset about that. Is it wrong? Maybe. Should we get the hell out of the affairs of other countries? Hell yes.

None of our business. Lets watch the latest episode of Lost and leave the Arabs the hell alone.

Why don't we also leave the other 180 or so countries we have bases in alone, too? Why won't we?

BECAUSE OF OUR BAD FOREIGN POLICY.

It's nmt American people the world hates...it's the policies of the US Government. When the D and R parties realize THAT, then MAYBE we won't be so hated around the world.

You still do not understand what blowback is, and bringing Kosovo to this discussion is grave mistake of yours since all you know about Kosovo is from headlines in New York Times and Washington Post. You need to do more research. or better yet you should not talk and write about things that you dont understand, so take easy subject and write about Paris Hilton jail time, it suits you better.

US biased policies lead to blowback which creates situation where terrorists emerge.
I am not denying that there are religious fanatics who want to establish caliphate in middle east, but this is minority which cannot have any political weight unless there is occupation.

When you have occupation and US support of dictators this create perfect breeding ground for terrorists and their consequent recruitment by fundamentalist. People of middle east want peace and democracy but not by gun, but by example and unbiased policy towards the question of Palestinians.

Basically Ron Paul was only voice of reason when Congress voted on Kosovo resolution.
Kosovo was propaganda stunt by USA as stepping stone of aggression, there was no ethnic cleansing of Albanians by Serbs, there was Serb crackdown on rebels and extremist who were bombing police stations and killing government officials. Racak accident, was killing of those rebels, they were all men, in uniforms. The exodus of Albanians happened when the NATO bombs started falling on Kosovo that's when people of Kosovo took for refuge and safety in Macedonia, Serbia, and Montenegro. Now the real ethnic cleansing which you wont read about in New York Times is of 100,000 Serbs who were forced to leave Kosovo when NATO Humanitarians came in. It's all recorded and discussed in academic circles, Noam Chomsky is the one.
War in former Yugoslavia was civil war, where atrosoties happened on both sides. It just was convenient to blame Serbs, since they rejected globalization and US dominance of their country.

If we are so concerned about ethnic cleansing why don't we bomb Sudan and others in Africa that are killing thousands of people a day?

I understand your ignorance, you accept system and think system is good, but one day when you personally experience the real system your reality will crash and consequently your belief in it.

When using "ethnic cleansing" as a just excuse for American intervention, a writer such as yourself always cherry picks from the history tree. What about Darfur? Rwanda? Hey, the United States was founded on ethnic cleansing and we're the greatest Nation on the face of the earth that has ever existed or ever will exist, correct? Maybe ethnic cleansing ultimately leads to lasting peace and prosperity? Your true fallacy lies in the belief that the United States has a right to intervene in other nation's affairs - that "we" know better than "they." Currently, there are less than 200 countries on planet earth and more than 700 U.S. military bases in all but a small handful of those countries. Do you have any idea how much this costs an American worker? most of which have never left the United States to see the fruits of their labor. I bet you have never been out of the United States. I promise you, once you leave Cornell and Mommy and Daddy aren't paying for your life, you'll start to wonder why half of the money in your paycheck isn't yours. It pays for interventionalism and I'm tired of footing the bill. One final question: Did you support the initial invasion of Iraq? If you did, then as Ron Paul has so eloquently noted, the same people who swore that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq are now the same ones telling us that we must stay the course, that Iraq will descend into Hell if we leave. Why should we listen? Why should we believe? If you feel so strongly about stopping ethnic cleansing, pick a country and I will pay for your plane ticket. Go stop genocide with your own two hands. Stop saying "we" when the only sacrifice you make is writing a blog for an upper class private university. And as Ron Paul also points out, even if we want to meddle in the affairs of other nation's, America is in for a wake up call because we are borrowing the money from China just to stay afloat. Will China be justified when they come looking for a return on their money that we can't pay back. Will they have a right to invade to get their money back? I guess not, right. That would be wrong.

I already responded, but I think this might help summarize. Estimated interventionist coefficient in percent:
Rudy: 90%
George: 80%
Mike: 15%
Ron: 5%
So who are you closer to?

i find it hard to believe that you DONT watch FOX religiously.

"When Ron Paul listens to terrorists, he acts by considering their viewpoints in his foreign policy, especially to avoid blowback, a bad idea (by the way, in my previous entry, I wrote that Ron Paul called 9/11 “blowback,” not that he invented the term). It establishes the wrong mindset whether it involves negotiating with terrorists or instead listening to and considering their viewpoints when setting foreign policy. America must define its foreign policy on its own terms, not the terrorists’ terms."

gee, i follow everything Dr. Paul has said, and NEVER has he said anything about "listening" to the terrorists as the fulcrum for foreign polciy. your statement is 100% neocon spin and wholly dishonest. Exactly the same jam job Rudy attemtped to do to Paul (and failed miserably) at the last debate.

your arguents come from war monger land, where the proper foreign policy consists of antagonizing and creating enemies, then denying that the policy created them, in order to have a perpetual whipping boy to waste vast sums of Americans wealth along with plenty of human life...all in the name of fighting an non entity....terror

you and the neocons actually believe that cause and effect DOES NOT exist, that you can perpetually lie long enough for it to become the truth.....problem is, the average american (who does not even know of Ron Paul) knows this and is sick of it. now your only job and #1 goal is to destroy the only candidate from either party man enough to expose you and teh neocons for what you are,and in turn, keep the public brainwashed into thinking that you are the representatives of freedom.

the truth is, that you are the opposite of the protectors of freedom and its greatest threat in the history of the United States....you are fascits

Mr Wacker, you write like a journalism undergraduate, and your lack of historical and cultural depth bespeaks many hours of study in that field.

You'd have done better reading authentic materials. You might start with the Bill of Rights, not fashionable in your circle, perhaps, but as you say "sometimes it's good to consider opposing perspectives when making decisions." Sometimes, Mr Wacker?

Many people in this country and abroad, some of whom have a high regard for the genius of its historical particularities, feel that the superficiality of public discourse has reached a crisis stage.

You come on the scene at a very significant moment in this country's history, and if all you can produce is further blandishments, you will have passed up a real opportunity to contribute to the rebuilding of a crippled American polity.

You obviously did not spend much time with literature, so let me offer you one of its principal insights, 'life imitates art.' If you have understood this, it is time for you to (re)read, not watch on video, _1984_. If you begin afterwards to have nightmares, that is a good sign.

Best of luck to you and to us all, Mr Wacker. Thank you for considering Dr Paul, even if superficially. I trust that with some further historical inquiry, you will come to understand that there are issues at stake that warrant your time and effort. They are not to be found in your journalism courses.

Too bad the Serbs didn't do any ethic clensing. You need to stop reading the NYT.

"The court ruled, first, that the atrocities in Bosnia did not amount to genocide. And, second, that the government of Yugoslavia not only did not commit genocide, but that it was not responsible for the killings in Bosnia because it didn’t exercise effective control over the armed forces of the Bosnian Serbs. To be sure, the court, following the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), did rule that genocide took place on one occasion—in July 1995 in Srebrenica. However, even in this case the government of Yugoslavia bore no responsibility. There was no evidence, the court said, that the attack on Srebrenica was ordered by, or was undertaken in collusion with, Belgrade."

furthrmore...

""To be sure, the ICJ ruling was problematic, to say the least. The court said no genocide took place in Bosnia, other than in Srebrenica. But this makes no sense. Genocide, if it means anything, is an attempt to destroy an entire nation or an entire ethnic group. If you kill many members of an ethnic group in one village, but leave them alone in the next village, and, indeed, in every other village, you may, if they are unarmed, be committing a war crime, but you are not committing genocide. Raphael Lemkin, drafter of the 1948 Genocide Convention, defined genocide as "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves." Thus, in ruling that the killings in Bosnia didn’t amount to genocide, but that the killings in one small town—Srebrenica—did amount to genocide, the court was hardly in accord with the convention.""

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5847

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
YEAR 2007
2007
26 February
General List
No. 91
26 February 2007
CASE CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE
PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
(BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA v. SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO)

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/91/13685.pdf?PHPSESSID=ca99b036651949aa2d4648e61820c58a

Read the ruling yourself.
I guess Ron Paul was right....

I can also tell that you have a limited knowledge of the history of the west in the Middle East.

Here's your reading list

you should start with the Sykes-Picot Agreement and work your way to present.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes-Picot_Agreement

Enjoy

It sounds as if you have made up your mind about Ron Paul on Foreign Policy or non-interventionism for America.

First off, he voted not to go into Iraq, on the basis of not "Giving power over to the President" to go policing and nation building, but instead wanted Congress to declare war as is Constitutional. He did vote to go after bin Laden.
He also has introduce a bill that the rest of Congress won't take responsibility in, in taking away those powers unconstitutionally given to the President and given back to Congress. It's Constitutionally Congress's responsibility.

Paul also has stated your not going to be leaving Iraq overnight. However he was saying take a good hard look at the way we spend in our oversea excursions and the unnecessary bad policies that we don't need to be involved in, all over the world. Kinda like how Reagan won the Cold War even though we had 40,000 nukes pointed at us.

We cannot be the world's police with a 60 trillion dollar debt (w/ future entitlement obligations) and be involved all over the world.
We will not survive internally, before we ever defeat world terrorism.

When your wrong like we were in Iraq, or you support terrorist known backers like Saudi Arabia you cannot believe you won't expect blowback from someone out there claiming to be Al-Qaida or a terrorist.

The CIA believes it.

Mr.Whacker how many third world nations do you think don't like us from our own CIA's "Secret Wars"? Google it.

So long as the long arm of unconstitutional big government is outstretch around the world we will be at war. We do ourselves better to not entangle ourselves in others foreign affairs.

Before debating Ron Paul, work on writing clear and concise blogs that can illustrate your point of view. Adding a proof reader to the process would be helpful.

How about doing some research on the disparity between Gallup and Zogby polls, and the current internet wave of support. Rudy, Mitt, and Sen McCain (a man I respect) have been talked about for almost a year now as the great contenders. Ron Paul was a relative unknown until the debates, not even declaring candidacy until March of this year. Name recognition counts in telephone polls. In addition, a sampling of 800 registered Republican voters in May 2007 is not indicative of who can be elected. Rudy was leading for some time, but now the GOP blog nation is starting to dismiss him as Fred Thompson enters the fray.

We have a long way to go. If Ron Paul does not register in national polls by Fall/Winter of 2007, then he has no chance. Dismissing Ron Paul this early is shameful.

There is so much missing from your "reasoning", I'll stick only to your summation:

you wrote: And even with Iran in 1953, were our actions wrong because of the blowback from the Iranians, or because we overthrew a democratically elected government with our actions?

What is this supposed to mean? Are you implying that Ron Paul has not made it clear that he opposes the clandestine overthrow of that government representing a sovereign people?

Actually, Ron Paul specifically cited that action in the last debate. For you to infer otherwise, suggest that you really do need to do more research.

As for comparing you to others, like Hannity and Malkin, well, I'll leave that to others...maybe you should consider why it is that people see a resemblence.

There are actual, thoughtful people in America, and then there are the kind who chant the Fox News mantra "Democrats bad, Republicans good" and who never give a thought to the wild growth of the federal government during each and every Republican administration from Nixon on.

I won't say that the die hard Democrat is any better; certainly not. But saying one is no worse than a Democrat, well, hardly cuts it.

Get your facts straight before you criticize..then, someone might elevate your comparisons to people other than shill/parrots like Hannity and Malkin.

Any good football coach knows you need to understand the other team before finalizing your own game strategy. Listen to them, watch them, know what motivates them.

Dispite what McCain and Guiliani think, our goal in life is not to kill everyone in the Middle East... just in case they might hate us.

For someone who isn't very knowledgable about Ron Paul you sure are confident in your ability to predict exactly how he'd implement policy. And you ability to see the future is astonishing as well ("in reality his Presidency would turn out to be worse than Nixon or Carter or Bush II or whoever you think is the worst"). Wow!

Please take the following suggestion seriously.

Take a reality check. Be open-minded and read some stuff you normally wouldn't like crooksandliars.com, wikipedia.com, andrewsullivan.com, and reason.com. As you said "it's good to consider opposing perspectives when making decisions."

I'm not going to attack you for your views as did so many others. I'm only going to say what my read is. Out of all the candidates running so far, Ron Paul is the only one that does not seem about to get on the Bush bandwagon, and sell America and it's citizens out. Ron Paul is a populist and that is exactly what we need at this time to overcome the neo-cons that are trying their best to destroy this country.

The idea that OUR OWN TERMS should be just doing what ever the hell we want with no regaurd for unintended results or "blowback" is plane stupid. If they hate freedom I can think of alot of places more free than the U.S. that are much closer to the middle east and have much less guns to defend them self with. Say.... Amsterdam

I want OUR OWN TERMS to mean WHEN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY IS REALLY IN DANGER and not because we want to control natural resources of another land.

Mike Wacker -- so Mike, let's say you have a fight with your wife or girlfriend. How do you resolve it?

A) Do you insist you are correct and continue to escalate the fight at all costs?

Or B) do give in a little and back off, and suggest you might be wrong, for the purpose of making up?

What's more important? What is your life going to be about, Mike?

Now apply this to the Iraq War. Or any war. People are people, even if they are Arab or Muslim or American or White. Your wife pr girlfriend has the same DNA as anyone else.

So tell me, why in the world would you want to continue to use a diplomatic method from the stone age that's already been proven not to work, in order to try to make life better here on planet Earth?

What's in it for you, personally, Mike? Or do you just enjoy being angry and alone?

I do commend you on writing a more clear commentary on your beliefs. I was, as well as many others, put off by the smugness of your first article. Still, I've yet to see you contemplate American foreign policy in a way that causes any introspection. Do you assume that America's policies are infallible? Why should America unnecessarily implement policies that cause moderates to lean toward extremism? Also, I believe your assumption that Ron Paul would base his policy decisions on "blowback" (you've used the word loosely, inferring "retaliation") is false. He's not a pacifist. From his voting record it seems he knows when and where to fight.

Ron Paul has been a non-interventionist since well before 9/11/01. His views aren't formed out of fear. They're formed out of an understanding of foreign policy, the US Constitution, the lessons of history, and advice from several of our nation's founders (including George Washington).

This whole idea of "blowback" shouldn't dictate our actions. But it does show what can happen when our arrogance leads us to start wars, overthrow / install foreign leaders, and upset fragile political systems in dangerous parts of the world.

We don't have the right or obligation to rule over the entire world. When we attempt it, bad things will happen. But even if bad things didn't happen, or happened anyway, we still don't have the authority.

Its not just about cause and effect. Its about doing what's right for our nation, and respecting the sovereignty of other countries.

What a complete waste of time. Thought you'd have learned a thing or two since the last article and the subsequent criticism. Sorry to see that you have not.

Instead of approaching this subject more cautiously and thoughtfully, you have doubled-down your efforts to assert what you still seem to believe is relevant analysis.

There is no substance or real insight here. Only ego.

I won't be back. Cornell has been shamed.

Will Ron Paul & Rudy Giuliani Debate Foreign Policy at Freedomfest?
The annual FreedomFest conference, has issued a debate invitation to GOP Presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul to use FreedomFest ‘07 as a debate venue to further explore their fundamental differences in foreign policy and the war in Iraq that were highlighted in the Columbia, SC debate. To review the debate invitation - www.freedomfest.com/debate.htm
For more information on the July 2007 FreedomFest Conference in Las Vegas, go to
www.freedomfest.com

The most humorous part of this to me is the fact that the writer obviously just took his first logic class and is so excited to throw the language of Hurley's Logic into the post to make himself appear lettered. I've seen this same ham-handed effort at intellectualism from so many college sophomores that it just makes me giggle. When he gets the other 95% of the education that he needs to do effective analysis, he will look back at this with great embarrassment.

I poster up above brought up a very good subject regarding who is 'we' when you say things like 'we' should stop ethnic cleansing, etc. Let me backtrack first:
Foreign Policy - The US government should NOT interfere with foreign affairs on its own, at all, in almost every case. If and when the US government does stick its nose out and into another sovereign nation, it should only do so with joint and equal support of a myriad of other nations, something akin to the UN (but not so much as the UN forces always seem to be 90% US forces with a few others thrown in for show). Same goes for 'foreign aid', in fact, I would probably even suggest that all foreign aid be terminated outright.

Now, the 'we' part. Saying that the USG stay out of foreign entanglements and away from sending taxpayer money and debt does NOT mean that citizens are to be restricted from doing so. Many American jewish citizens send 'aid' back to Israel, as well as send children to do their stint in the Israeli army and live in kibutzes for a year or two. This is fine as their actions, those folks who send aid or even military support, do not reflect on the nation as a whole, other citizens. This reduces 'blowback' to specific entities who are responsible for the initial actions, not innocents. When the USG does something, every single citizen is rolled up into a big amalgamous unit and held responsible. 'I' did not go to Saudia Arabia, 'I' did not piss off Bin Laden, yet 'I' am viewed by him to be an enemy because of the actions of 'my' government - my risks have been heightened. The government is supposed to act on 'our' behalf, well, in most cases, 'we' (meaning each and every citizen) can act on our own behalf just fine, thank you. If I care enough about the thousands dying of ethnic cleansing in country XYZ, then I am free to send money, form an organization, hire mercenaries, be a mercenary, whatever... but please, please, do not coerce my support for the benefit of others. Politicians in government gain, businesses and contractors, all stem to gain from various actions (interventions) around the globe. The problem is that the 'costs' (one of which is blowback) are spread out among folks who had nothing to do with the benefit.

When you say 'we', please ask first if you can include 'me' in your interventionist actions.

I promise not to denigrate your writing style or your school or your skills of logic. Hopefully I can represent Ron Paul with the level of civility he would show you if he were writing this himself.

I also want to commend you on being able to break from the liberal dogma that no doubt pervades the campus. I remember what it was like at college, and it could be tough being the only one in the class who was not afraid to express love of country.

Now, when considering American foreign policy, don't assume it is always the corect path. If you are a conservative, I am sure you legitimately question domestic policy suggestions made by well-meaning liberals. This is often because they fail to admit that their policies have unintended consequences that often undermine their best intentions.

Now, take this same skepticism and apply it to our foreign policy. Unlike many, I actually take Bush at his word that he wants to see a democratic oasis spring up in Mesopatamia as an example for other countries in the region. Problem is, he again failed to acknowledge the unintended consequences of these actions. He thinks his stubborn determination mixed with $600 billion and the blood of 3400 US soldiers must be sufficent for his goals to be acheived.

This is where the counsel of the founders is so prescient. They argued we are to a beacon, an example, for other countries to emulate IF THEY SO CHOOSE TO! We cannot make them fight for their freedom, especially when many (in Iraq) perceive us as being an impediment to that freedom. That this is right or wrong is almost immaterial. It just ampifies the fact that we need to avoid these situations to begin with, no matter how much we belive in 'the universal desire for freedom.'

Many predicted this war would be a great recruiting tool for the Jihad against America. Those predictions were mostly disregarded, and explained away with the 'better to kill them over there than over here' mantra. However, we can already see it playing out in the attempted attacks on Ft. Dix and JFK airporta. Surprise: they can be over there AND over here at the same time!

The children of the maimed or dead in Iraq will grow up to be the terrorists that my and my children wil be forced to deal with. An eight-year-old boy who sees his parent's bloodied bodies from collateral damage will not make the distinction that the 'Americans must have meant well.' When he is 17 he may merely still be angry, or he may want to take out his rage on us. If he acts on his emotions, many will say he is just an 'evil Islamofascist driven by irrational hatred of the West.' He will hate me, my family, my country because of the 'good intentions' of Dubya. For that, I will never be able to forgive our current president.

Regards,
Chris

Mike, Mike, Mike:

You still are trying to put up strawmen. The straw man of the day is that just because Dr. Paul suggested we get out of Iraq, that means he is also suggesting we should also get out of Afghanistan.

Nothing could be further from the truth. If you _listen_ to Dr. Paul (as opposed to listening what others say about Dr. Paul) you will discover that he is very keen on going after Osama. One of the main problems with waging war in Iraq (as Dr. Paul has mentioned) is that we aren't going after Osama.

Rather than debate Ron Paul, perhaps you should just interview him. You could look at it as an opportunity to give Dr. Paul enough rope to hang himself, and a platform from which to jump. Of course, I think he would tie you up in knots, but that's just my opinion.

But never mind what Dr. Paul *says*. Let's look at the public record.

Dr. Paul is the only Congressman to offer a bill of DECLARATION OF WAR in the House after 9-11.

Dr. Paul is the only Congressman to offer a bill authorizing the President to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal.

Both are constitutional. Both would go after Osama. Neither would require the military invasion of Iraq, or the continued military presence in Saudi Arabia (or any other country.)

Laters.

Interesting what you say about US intervention as if it was a heavenly gift. Before the US goes around fixing the problems of other countries, it should fix its own problems. You might want to read some more about how the US is screwing the world with the central bank and the IMF before you speak about blowback. US intervention in other countries is not only militaristic but also economic; I bet you would defend something like that, because as long as it’s not your ass being hurt, or your country being invaded, you don't truly give a damn. The US could help countries with money and generous investment; military intervention should be the last choice. And before you decide to cite how the US saved us from Hitler, first find out who financed Hitler in the first place. War needs money, the US is the center of finance, all the US needs to do if it really wants to stop terrorism is freeze the right funds and stop buying oil. US banks financed Hitler and the US keeps on financing terrorism. Ron Paul signs against intervention because he knows, like you do, that when there is intervention there is always some corrupt guy benefiting from it, the US does nothing for free, not even close to that. Your two faced speech suck man, really. That attitude is what makes the world hate America, keep it up, I know you will. Of course if Ron wins they will make it hard for him to do anything, the whole bipartisan system is rotten. It’s amazing what ivy league guys say and do thinking they are better, you truly suck.

Substanceless arguments....specious at best.

The Neocons have been wrong about almost everything they have claimed would happen. They've also shown a proclivity for spinning their own version of the truth.

Neocons are discredited. Not point paying their ludicrous imaginings any attention now.

When they show remorse for the deaths and destruction their rantings have led to, then they might be worth listening to.

Heres a brief bit of history to put something in perspective, around the 1940's the Chinese people really loved America, not sure why but they did. Something happened though, we supported the prick nationalist government over the communist rebels because of a bad policy that had no exceptions to it. Our none interventionists policy gave us a lot of admirers over the years but within the lost 50 years most of those people have changed their mind. Fighting to end the situation now in the middle east is short sighted. The problem is not the religion they have but what their clerics have turned it into. Gives us 100 years of none interventionist policy and I can say with a strong amount of confidence well have several hundred years more of peace. All we will have now is a cycle of decades long war.

Mike, you're still not getting it. Don't quit your day job...

you do not get it. The war on terror itself is a fraud. And it makes no sense to ignore Al Quada since we created them and recently appear to have been indirectly funding them. Do you forget us airlifting Al Queda to safety in Afganistan? We have made absolutely zero effort to get Osama Bin Laden. Do you blame him for 9-11 (the FBI doesn't, lack of evidence. All it takes is being misled or misinformed on a point or 2 to drawn these conclusions.

Chris is right. His post needs to be understood.

Self-goverment must, by definition, come from the consent of the governed. Indeed, where it does not exist it must flower, by whatever accord, and from the people themselves. Not by intervention, covert or overt, it MUST come from the people.

A vote taken today would have the Iraqis ejecting the US troops from their borders. Fine with me (and, I suggest, it'd be just fine with out troops). But, actually, I don't have to speak for our troops. I am their boss. I want my troops back home. Where they should be and from which they never should have been sent.

Democracy, that thing touted by the neocons, is bs. Self-government made the US. That requires the consent of the governed. We do NOT have the consent of the Iraqi people to establish a corporation in their backyard. And, hurray for them.

That means they are well on the way to getting what I and every freedom loving American wants everyone to have. LIBERTY.

It doesn't come at the point of anyone's gun, except when the opposition guns must be overcome.

Let's allow the Iraqi people to use their wits, their wisdom, and, yes, their guns, against their enemies. Let's not put our young people forward as their enemies.

Mike,

Thanks for doing a bit of reading and elevating your arguments somewhat...but you need to do some more work.

1) Regarding heeding our enemies' motivations, Paul is simply saying that we should understand the consequences of our foreign policy actions. Bush distorted the truth in the days after 9/11 when he gave us reasons for what had happenned. Paul is, at the outset, simply setting straight the record.

2) Regarding Afghanistan, have you read Paul's US House website?

"Mr, Speaker,

Sadly we find ourselves today dealing with our responsibility to provide national security under the most difficult of circumstances. To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex. The best tool the framers of the Constitution provided under these circumstances was the power of Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisals, in order to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties. The complexity of the issue, the vagueness of the enemy, and the political pressure to respond immediately limits our choices. The proposed resolution is the only option we're offered and doing nothing is unthinkable. There are a couple of serious points I'd like to make. For the critics of our policy of foreign interventionism in the affairs of others the attack on New York and Washington was not a surprise and many have warned of its inevitability. It so far has been inappropriate to ask why the U.S. was the target and not some other western country. But for us to pursue a war against our enemies it's crucial to understand why we were attacked, which then will tell us by whom we were attacked. Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal nor to know when the war is over. Inadvertently more casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible. Too often over the last several decades we have supported both sides of many wars only to find ourselves needlessly entrenched in conflicts unrelated to our national security. It is not unheard of that the weapons and support we send to foreign nations have ended up being used against us. The current crisis may well be another example of such a mishap. Although we now must fight to preserve our national security we should not forget that the founders of this great nation advised that for our own sake we should stay out of entangling alliances and the affairs of other nations. We are placing tremendous trust in our president to pursue our enemies as our commander-in-chief but Congress must remain vigilant as to not allow our civil liberties here at home to be eroded. The temptation will be great to sacrifice our freedoms for what may seem to be more security. We must resist this temptation.

And later...

"The tragic events of September 11th have led to renewed calls for the expansion of global government. Terrorism, we are told, is an international problem- and therefore the United States must subordinate its interests and defer to the international community before taking military action. Of course it's certainly commendable that President Bush is trying to build an international coalition to fight terrorism, and we should be enormously grateful to our allies for their support during these trying times. Yet we must never allow our national sovereignty to be eroded in the name of international cooperation. We cannot forget that our Constitution grants Congress and the President complete authority to provide for national defense and declare war. International support for our efforts against Bin Laden is desirable, but we do not need anyone's permission to act. Remember, the terrorists attacked on American soil and killed mostly American citizens. No international coalition can or should attempt to dictate our response.

His Afghanistan position is principled and in no way contradictory to his Iraq position. In fact, in other places, he severely chides the Administration for not pursuing Al Qaeda aggressively enough.

3) Regarding Kosovo, you may care to read a little Chomsky for an opposing view. Although Clinton, Albright, et al. remain convinced that their actions were just, others feel that the initial Serbian actions were aimed primarily at KLA fighters (no ethnic cleansing), that the Kosovar refugees left primarily because of NATO bombing, and that the subsequent persecution of the Albanian Serbs by the Albanian Kosovars was inadequately covered by the NYT. (Incidentally our actions in support of the KLA also directly aided Al Qaeda.)

But forgetting this moral murkiness, H.R. 647 was not "a bill to prohibit the United States from using the military in Kosovo," as you stated but rather "...To prohibit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense from being used for the deployment of United States Armed Forces in Kosovo unless that deployment is specifically authorized by law." The bill had the support of over two dozen members of Congress and an almost identical bill was introduced a few weeks later by US Senator Bob Smith in the Senate. The point is that the Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to decide whether or not a war should be funded. Thus, H.R. 647 was simply pro forma.

4) Regarding Iran 1953, we were wrong because of your #2 (overthrow of democratically-elected governance), and so the result was your #1 (Iran hostage crisis).

Best regards,

John H. Huckans, Ph.D. (Cornell '86)

Look at the incredible *condescension here. Summarized (yeah, I can straw man too)

"When I said listening is the same as negotiating (and implied that 'caving in to every demand' is what negotiating means) I meant that the *mentality of negotiating is the same as the mentality of listening."

Dang, Wacker. Let me offer profuse apologies on behalf of all the people who are so dense as to need that logic explained to us so fully.

"So if I committed a logical fallacy here, it would be a hyperbole at worst"

Alas, the logical fallacy problems are like this:
negotiating is not the same as caving in
negotiating is not the same as listening
(sidenote: I understand Paul's use of the word "listening" as more like "studying" -- would be surprised to see him recommending actual negotiations at a table)
the "mentality" of any of these things is not the same as the "mentality" of any of the others.

If you blur all the distinctions in order to make Paul's positions appear to be other than they are, you are creating a straw man, and it does you no good to introduce the irrelevant distinction of identical "mentalities"

There has been a great deal of debate during the past few elections, which has even been alluded to as very real issues w/in their own polls by Zogby and Gallup, as to the accuracy of specifically political polls which take into account only landline numbers. Most cellular phone numbers are not available to the major polling services. And many people in this nation have stopped even using landline telephone services due to the conveniences of cellular phones. So the accuracy of official scientific polls is quite frankly very questionable, if not as questionable as the non-scientific polls conducted online. When a large segment (and even a few percent is a large segment when one considers the implications and influence of these polls) of the voting population are not available for polling. We could suppose that this segment would have very similar results, but that would be a very unscientific assumption. Whether or not it is true, it could be argued that more technophiles abandon their landlines and technophiles are more likely to hold beliefs that would favor candidate x, whomever that might be.

'Negotiating with terrorists is different in some respects from listening to terrorists as Ron Paul would like us to do, but in terms of the mindset both establish, they are identical.'
Negotiating w/ terrorists and listening to terrorists do not establish the same mindsets. Study after study have shown that the majority of terrorists are terrorists b/c they feel that they (or their community, culture, people, etc) have been unjustly treated and that their pleas have been ignored. Listening to their concerns and taking appropriate action to right or at least soften real injustices perpetrated by ourselves (and if you don't believe we've caused a good deal of real injustices, then you are very naive) would make our nation respectable around the world and more importantly gives terrorists or potential terrorists that have been truly wronged by our country the mindset that we are a rational people and that we do care about humanity. By furthering our current policies (economic, political and militarily), we will only create more terrorists. Negotiating w/ terrorists is very rarely a good idea. It gives the mindset that we are weak and that we are willing to appease them.

As I did in my comment to part 1 of your column, I must re-quote Thomas Paine from his American Crisis XIII as i thnk it illustrates greatly the point I have tried to make in the above paragraph: 'In this situation, may she (America) never forget that a fair national reputation is of as much importance as independence. That it possesses a charm that wins upon the world, and makes even enemies civil. That it gives a dignity which is often superior to power, and commands reverence where pomp and splendor fail.'

Read How Ron Paul Became President

A fictional case study about how a future terrorist attack against the US and the Bush administration response elects Ron Paul as President.

Learn what could happen when the United States is hit by another terrorist attack by Islamic extremists that creates an extreme response by Washington in The Final Presidential Executive Order at http://www.swissconfederationinstitute.org/swisspreserve14.htm

This is from a new free online book, “The Swiss Preserve Solution” & the excess reaction results in the election of Ron Paul as President, not in 2008 but in 2012.