I [Ron Paul] think they [Israel], one time in the '80s, took care of a nuclear reactor in Iraq. I stood up and defended Israel for this. Nobody else did at that time.
http://www.thestate.com/presidential-politics/story/281821.html
We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends.
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html
Why does Ron Paul support Israel when Israel launched a preemptive first strike against Iraq, but is opposed to the US doing the same thing in relation to Iraq or Iran? Why does he support the Bush Doctrine in application to Israel, but not in application to the US?
Because neither Iraq nor Iran was a threat to our national security. Neither have any kind of military to speak of. No WMD in Iraq. Did you see those little pea shooter boats that came near our huge warships? Iran does not have nukes. They are not a threat to us.
ReplyDeleteApparently Paul thought that the nuclear plant in Iraq was a real threat to the security of Israel, so he supported that action.
Paul asked an interesting question of Romney a week ago at the abc debate. He said suppose China came all the way across the ocean and forcefully removed our government. They said "You're going to live like us. You're going to have a government like us. You're going to have an economy like ours." They battled with some locals that didn't like this as they set up huge military bases. They did this to protect our natural resources, which they needed. Let's suppose they had good intentions. How would you react? Romney wouldn't answer. Can you?
anonymous said...
ReplyDelete“Because neither Iraq nor Iran was a threat to our national security.”
Okay, so you’re admitting that RP does support the Bush Doctrine. He supports the principle of preemption.
By your own admission, RP would defend a first strike on Iraq or Iran if either one (or both) posed a threat to our national security.
How many RP voters understand that RP supports the Bush Doctrine?
“Did you see those little pea shooter boats that came near our huge warships?”
That is such a dumb statement that it should be framed and mounted on the wall.
Ever heard of the attack on the USS Cole?
“Iran does not have nukes. They are not a threat to us.”
Since you lack elementary reasoning skills, let’s walk you through the logic of your own concessions thus far.
You just indicated that Iran is not a threat to us because Iran has no nukes. So, by implication, Iran would be a threat to us if Iran did possess nukes.
And by the further logic of the Bush Doctrine, which you favorably impute to RP, if a nuclear Iran were a threat to our national security, then we would be entitled to launch a preemptive strike on Iran to degrade its nuclear program.
So what distinguishes your position from Richard Perle’s?
“Apparently Paul thought that the nuclear plant in Iraq was a real threat to the security of Israel, so he supported that action.”
Classic application of the Bush Doctrine, only transposed to Israeli national security instead of American national security.
So what distinguishes RP’s position from Richard Perle’s?
“Paul asked an interesting question of Romney a week ago at the abc debate. He said suppose China came all the way across the ocean and forcefully removed our government. They said ‘You're going to live like us. You're going to have a government like us. You're going to have an economy like ours.’ They battled with some locals that didn't like this as they set up huge military bases. They did this to protect our natural resources, which they needed. Let's suppose they had good intentions. How would you react? Romney wouldn't answer. Can you?”
RP is implicitly comparing the US gov’t with the Iraqi gov’t under Saddam. Since I don’t regard the two as morally equivalent, RP’s argument from analogy suffers from a fatal equivocation.
However, that answer presumes a basic command of informal logic and moral discernment which neither or you is capable of mustering.
In what way did Ron support them? Can you please provide more specifics?
ReplyDeleteThe context is abundantly clear, but you are simply trying to muddy the waters. We get it, you don't like Ron, but is that the best you can muster? This reminds me of reading Dave Hunt on Calvinism.
scottie said...
ReplyDelete“In what way did Ron support them? Can you please provide more specifics?”
Trying redirecting that question to RP.
“The context is abundantly clear.”
If the context is “abundantly, clear,” then you don’t need more specifics, do you?
BTW, asserting that the context is abundantly clear is not an argument. You have yet to offer an alternative interpretation.
“But you are simply trying to muddy the waters.”
Maybe your candidate is simply muddleheaded.
And your fellow RP supporter agreed with my interpretation (see above).
“We get it, you don't like Ron, but is that the best you can muster?”
I get it, you like Ron, but is that the best you can muster?
“This reminds me of reading Dave Hunt on Calvinism.”
Yes, reading your feedback is, indeed, reminiscent of reading Dave Hunt.
Ron Paul is historically insignificant. He will fade from the political landscape in a month or so. His importance is purely instrumental. He’s a vehicle for various factions of American society that have found no other political outlet.
ReplyDeleteThis makes him a magnet for the lunatic fringe. That’s, in part, because some of his own views intersect with the lunatic fringe. In addition, many of his supporters reinforce his crackpot image by their own rhetorical grenades.
As a result, it would be very easy to dismiss the Ron Paul phenomenon out of hand. But that would be a mistake.
Some of his supporters are reasonable people with reasonable grievances. Unfortunately, their voice is downed out by less reputable or rational supporters.
But Ron Paul is tapping into a subculture of discontent. A rag-tag movement that has seized on Ron Paul as a megaphone to ventriloquize their own grievances. In some cases we’re dealing with fringe-groups which richly deserve to be marginalized.
But we need to give a fair hearing to certain subcultures in America that have been unjustly sidelined by the establishment. Where they express a legitimate and neglected concern, that should be incorporated into the Republican agenda.
Perhaps, after the GOP has settled on a nominee, Ron Paul fades from public view, and his less reputable supporters crawl back under their rock, it will be easier for the more intelligent members of this temporary alliance to emerge and be heard.
Honestly, Steve, you act like a 2 year old. You truly lack maturity.
ReplyDeleteThe issue at hand is Israel's sovereignty and not Bush's doctrine. He supported Israel's sovereignty in that context and his whole point is that Israel can take care of themselves and don't need us backing them as well as the Arab States.
With respect to Ron Paul's historical significance, I think you underestimate. He is laying the ground work for younger individuals that thinks like he does. Even the fact that he mentions Mises quite a bit will give Mises a greater reading and will bear fruit in the long run. Also, since Bloomberg may run, I think we can look to Ron running in a third (or fourth) party. This would also be historically significant, because it may start to break up the two party system. No, I don't think a third or fourth party will win (I think it is the Dems to lose), but it could be historically significant.
Scottie said:
ReplyDelete"The issue at hand is Israel's sovereignty and not Bush's doctrine. He supported Israel's sovereignty in that context and his whole point is that Israel can take care of themselves and don't need us backing them as well as the Arab States."
He was defending Israel's preemptive attack on the Iraqi reactor. He thereby grants to Israel a right which he denies to the US.
"Honestly, Steve, you act like a 2 year old. You truly lack maturity."
Honestly, Scottie, when you keep ducking the implications of his stated position, you exhibit a lack of intellectual maturity. Try again.
Seriously, Steve, pass your posts on to John Frame and see if he can help you a bit. Just pass it along and say, "John, am I behaving in an abnormal way? Is there something wrong with the way I respond?"
ReplyDeleteI am sure he can help you out.
All the best.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEveryone supports the principle of preemption. The devil is in the details, that is, how and when to apply it.
ReplyDeleteConsider the following:
1. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
2. Bay of Pigs
3. Cuban Missile Crisis
4. Our presence in Vietnam in order to stop the spread of communism.
Bernabe, given the context, I believe so. Steve embodies one of Machen's warrior children. All of his responses of are of the same type, "I know you are, but what am I?"
ReplyDeleteTo point out that that is acting like a two year, I believe is justified. Read through the threads and you can see that most of Steve's response are of the same caliber, simply repeating your words, but trying to act like they actually prove his point.
Again, Steve is friend's with him, so since I know he won't listen to me, because every response shows he has an axe to grind, I think it would serve him well to pass it on to someone else and perhaps listen to them.
That's all.
Scottie, his "I know you are but what am I" responses throw the uselessness of your arguments or claims back in your face. When you criticize those has childish, you are really calling your own arguments childish. They are meant to show that you have frustrated the goals of the dialogue, because your premises fail to have evidential priority over the conclusion.
ReplyDeleteTo point out that that is acting like a two year, I believe is justified. Read through the threads and you can see that most of Steve's response are of the same caliber, simply repeating your words, but trying to act like they actually prove his point.
ReplyDeleteNo, he's actually answering you on your own level. He's using your own yardstick to measure your own statements. If you think Steve is acting "like a 2 year old" you have only yourself to blame, because he's simply pointing out that,if measured by your own yardstick, you're also acting like a 2 year old - yet you're the one claiming the moral high ground.
SCOTT SHAFFER SAID:
ReplyDelete“Everyone supports the principle of preemption.
Sure about that?
"Of course, the excuse is that 9/11 changed everything, but the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war is not a minor change. This is huge. This is the first time we as a nation accept as our policy that we start the wars."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/10/MN1EUC1KN.DTL
“The devil is in the details, that is, how and when to apply it.”
In which event you support the Bush Doctrine. For you, the issue is not over the principle of preemption, but which cases are good candidates to trigger the Bush Doctrine.
Scottie will now say:
ReplyDelete"That article only says that Ron Paul rejects preemptive war, not a preemptive strike that could have started a war! Ron Paul is being utterly, wutterly, nutterly, butterly consistent!
I mean isn't it obvious?
How could you doubt Ronno?
Oh please God not Ronno...
Not Ronny, McJohnny!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not the Ronster!
ANYONE but the Ronster!"
I'm just trying to get into their mind set.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYeah I'm sure about that unless you are a complete pacifist.
To make sure we're not talking past one another, answer this: When is it acceptable for one nation to threaten or even take military action against another?
If believing there are certain instances where it is acceptable to take military action against another country even though they have not attacked the United States first makes me a proponent of the Bush doctrine, count me in. However, my point is that Bush isn't the first president to do so, nor is it necessarily wrong (in my opinion to do so). The question, at least from my perspective, is what is the threat threshold we are willing to live with.
Putting it another way, if we hypothetically knew before 9/11 that a nation was going to orchestrate an attack on the Twin Towers, would we have been justified in taking pre-emptive military action? In my opinion, yes. (Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying this was the case. I am giving a hypothetical situation.) And, I certainly believe most of Bush's predecessors would have taken military action as well. That is why I say the devil is in the details.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteSorry, I re-read your original post and comment. It sounds like we are in basic agreement about a nation's right to take pre-emptive action when threatened. However, we may disagree whether the Bush doctrine is a shift in the United State's historical position and whether Ron Paul contradicts himself.
Before 9/11, the Bush doctrine was "no nation buidling; a humble foreign policy."
ReplyDelete9/11 changed that for Bushie.
Ron Paul supported Israel's self-defence in the 80s. Ron Paul still supports national self-defence for all nations, especially America.
Ron Paul just happens to recognize that Iraq was not a threat to our national security. Ron Paul also correctly recognizes that BLOWBACK (a term coined by the CIA and acknowledged in the official 9/11 commission report) is indeed a threat to national security.
Michael Scheuer, the former CIA guy in charge of hunting Bin Laden, agrees with Dr. Paul and supports him 100%. He, like Dr. Paul says that Jihadists dont hate us because of our freedoms. They hate us because we have been over there since the 50s, installing dictators and building military bases.
US troops should be on US soil defending US borders. They should not be around the world building nations while illegal aliens sneak into our own country and our national security is being compromised by porous borders.
How in the world do you expect to keep our nation secure and keep undesirables out while our national guard is guarding ANOTHER NATION?
These are just some of the reasons that Dr. Paul is #1 in support from military servicemembers. They are out there in the field, and they see the wisdom and truth of Ron Paul's message.
Since Scott Shaffer is a reasonable guy, I'll let him have the last word.
ReplyDeleteaaron kinney said...
ReplyDelete“Before 9/11, the Bush doctrine was ‘no nation buidling; a humble foreign policy.’ 9/11 changed that for Bushie.”
Yes, he changed his mind. So what? If the preexisting policy is a failure, you should change course.
Politicians make shortsighted statements. Bush isn’t Kissinger. He wasn’t a foreign policy wonk.
“Ron Paul supported Israel's self-defence in the 80s. Ron Paul still supports national self-defence for all nations, especially America.”
You’re equivocating, Aaron. The isn’t about national defense, per se. It’s about a particular aspect of national defense—preemption. Does Ron Paul support the Bush Doctrine? That’s the question.
“Ron Paul just happens to recognize that Iraq was not a threat to our national security.”
That would not be a principled argument against the Bush Doctrine. It would only mean he didn’t think Iraq was a good candidate for the Bush Doctrine. That the Bush Doctrine was misapplied in the case of Iraq.
What about Iran or Pakistan or Syria?
BTW, it’s an open question whether or not Iraq was a threat to our national security:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/startling_implications_of_a_ji.html
“Ron Paul also correctly recognizes that BLOWBACK (a term coined by the CIA and acknowledged in the official 9/11 commission report) is indeed a threat to national security.”
Why are Ron Paulettes so fond of the 9/11 report? Doesn’t that represent the Establishment? Do you trust the Establishment?
“Michael Scheuer, the former CIA guy in charge of hunting Bin Laden, agrees with Dr. Paul and supports him 100%.”
So what? I’m sure you can find CIA agents who range across the political spectrum.
Our current Secretary of Defense is a former DCI. James Woolsey and George Tenet support the Bush Doctrine.
“He, like Dr. Paul says that Jihadists dont hate us because of our freedoms. They hate us because we have been over there since the 50s, installing dictators and building military bases.”
How many dictators have we been installing over there since the 50s?
When we withdraw from Saudi Arabia, did bin Laden lay down his arms?
Isn’t this a simpleminded theory of terrorism? Does it apply to domestic, Islamic terrorism in the EU and UK (to take one example)?
“US troops should be on US soil defending US borders.”
This isn’t the Middle Ages, Aaron. The model of a fortified city is no match for modern terrorism.
“They should not be around the world building nations while illegal aliens sneak into our own country and our national security is being compromised by porous borders.”
I thought you were an anarchist, Aaron. Since when did you come around to the belief the gov’t in general, not to mention the Federal gov’t in particular, was responsible for policing our borders. Shouldn’t the Pentagon be dissolved? Why do you even believe in political borders? Didn’t take you long to go soft on the revolution, comrade!
“How in the world do you expect to keep our nation secure and keep undesirables out while our national guard is guarding ANOTHER NATION?”
Why does an anarchist believe in the National Guard?
Our troops are stretched too thin because we have a volunteer army. Do you, as an anarchist, think we should reinstitute the draft?
“These are just some of the reasons that Dr. Paul is #1 in support from military servicemembers. They are out there in the field, and they see the wisdom and truth of Ron Paul's message.”
Well, that theory will be put to the test in the SC primary since SC is a military stronghold.
steve,
ReplyDelete"BTW, it’s an open question whether or not Iraq was a threat to our national security:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/startling_implications"
No, it's not an open question. It's simply amazing that you guys are still trying to find a significant link between Saddam and Osama, even after Colin Powell's speech before the UN that there was one. No al-qaeda existed in Iraq before the regime change. Afterwards, Zarqawi set up shop there and was warned by Bin Laden that he should emphasize Iraqi nationalism in his quest due to the blowback that could occur. After we began to arm the Sunni's again in 2007, they turned on the al-qaeda in Iraq.
The UNSCOM weapons inspectors and IAEA were quite certain that Iraq didn't have WMD (according to both ritter and el-baradei). Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, said as much in 1995 when he defected from Iraq (later verified by our intelligence, UN, and IAEA). We put Saddam in a situation where he had to prove a negative, as Rumsfield quipped, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Talk about conspiracies...
I think what matters is that before we went to war in Iraq, there was *no* evidence of any meaningful link between the two. Over 20,000 documents and 75,000 pages of material were reviewed at the behest of DCI Tenet (and yet we were told there was one hmm).
Re Ron Paul and Israel's preemptive strike:
I think it would be apparent that he respects Israel's sovereignty and their right to protect themselves as they see fit (he's said this much in his foreign policy book and elsewhere). The U.S. has typically attempted to exercise sovereignty over Israel in matters relating to *their* defense. This does not mean that he necessarily agrees with the preemption itself, but rather their decision to decide defense matters themselves.
Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete"No, it's not an open question. It's simply amazing that you guys are still trying to find a significant link between Saddam and Osama, even after Colin Powell's speech before the UN that there was one."
I see that you don't try to interact with the article I referenced.
"This does not mean that he necessarily agrees with the preemption itself, but rather their decision to decide defense matters themselves."
Possibly, but different Ron Paul supporters are offering conflicting interpretations of what he "really" meant.
Steve said, "I see that you don't try to interact with the article I referenced."
ReplyDeleteAs I alluded to earlier, it doesn't really matter if they find a link *now* and hence why I didn't directly respond to your article. Colin Powell's speech to the UN was before the Iraq war. We were told *before* the Iraq war that there was a meaningful link between the two, yet it's odd that people are still attempting to find one. At best, it's conspiratorial evidence of the type you typically ridicule.