This is an opinion piece i found while venturing through my evil-libertarian media outlets. It's a little long, but the point gets summed up in the first 3 or 4 paragraphs.
Word of warning: it's aimed at being pro-Ron Paul! *gasp*
I have to admit, that it kind of feels this way when I get into debates with many liberals. People always demand that Ron Paul is some sort of whack job, yet I'll point out that we're in 5 undeclared wars (1 was secretly started and Syria took the blame for us) and most liberals just say "well, he means well".
I dunno. Just wanted to throw this out there because this is basically what it feels like to make the arguments.
I feel the same way whenever I mention Dennis Kucinich.
Whom I love.
Get the same reaction: He's a kook.
It's not all that long, and yeah, I agree with most of it.
But the problem is that like it or not, the US has already invaded and (mostly) conquered Iraq and Afghanistan. We've removed the power that ran those countries, and now the US is the power that (sort of) controls those countries. If we just up and left, like the Belgians left the Congo, the power vacuum would implode, and chances are we'd have to go back and deal with our mess (again).
I think the reason that most folks think Paul is a kook is that they think he's either deliberately ignoring the chaos that would ensue after a swift withdrawal, or that he believes that those countries will somehow magically become stable and prosperous if only we'd leave, or else that he fully expects the chaos, and in fact welcomes it.
But yeah, we really ought to withdraw from the stable countries where we have a military presence. Nobody's going to invade Germany, for example. Or Japan.
Honestly, I hope Paul runs again. If nothing else, it might force other candidates to deal with some difficult issues.
There is one more option regarding withdrawn from Iraq. It is the same false notion that spurred opposition to America entering WWII. A distant war in a distant land doesn't benefit the US. The mess will stay over there in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the recent evidence.
There hasn't been a distant war in a distant land since the Revolutionary War. Oceans are not the protection they are believed to be by those who have never read Alfred Thayer Mahan.
The idea of drastically reducing America's military presence in prosperous countries has real merit. I think Ron Paul is mostly right about would lead to greater economic liberty and an unwinding of government from our individual lives. Where I disagree, his ideas would leave us and our allies(yes we have and need them) naked in a world where brutality rewards its practitioners with more power unless they are opposed and brutally.
Ron Paul is old enough to have been educated when we still taught history. History shows that we must be engaged or be punished. Pearl Harbor and September 11th teach those lessons plainly.
"History shows that we must be engaged or be punished."
Engaged, yes, but there's a difference between engaging and garrisoning, as you've pointed out.
I don't think we've agreed on so many things before.
by peter565 3 years ago
How much longer do you think the US would remain the most powerful in the world?When George Bush was in power, a lot of people think, US' time as most powerful nation in the world is limited, due to the continue crippling economy and one ill foreign policy after another, especially to do with Iraq...
by raiderfan 9 years ago
Some countries would say America is for always involving itself in other countries issues and economies. Americans are lead to believe the biggest problem is a toss up between Iran and North Korea even though we are involved in Iraq and Afghanistan still. Other would say China because it is the...
by ITcoach 6 years ago
by kirstenblog 6 years ago
I just stumbled on this story and am really impressed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/2 … 09102.htmlThe story is about Ron Paul's stance that the fed should take a hands off approach to medical marijuana, that it should be down to the states. My only worry is that Obama campaigned...
by SparklingJewel 7 years ago
this guy is giving a perspective that needs to be heard Specifically, on all the metrics that a year ago everyone accepted as useful indicators of political standing, Ron Paul is not just a front-runner but a strong one.First, and most directly, he does extremely well in polls. The organization of...
by 910chris 6 years ago
Over the last couple of days a lot of media attention has gone towards a conspiracy theory involving Ron Paul and Mitt Romney banding together. They seem to be pushing it pretty hard which in my mind means that they are trying to paint Ron Paul as a sell-out. What are your thoughts?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|