Monday, December 19, 2011

American Troops Get Why Ron Paul Has It Right On Foreign Policy

This video is a must view if you want to understand Ron Paul's views of the blowback effect of America's disastrous past foreign policy decisions and how it has produced our costly and unsustainable war on terrorism. Ron Paul is alone among the presidential candidates in understanding the historical significance of the mistakes of our past actions. If you watch it, you will understand why so many of our active duty troops support Ron Paul over the other candidates. They get it because it's their lives who are put on the line every day fighting these costly, endless and pointless wars in the Middle East. Obama, Romney, Gingrich, Bachman et al. all support a continuation of the disastrous Bush-Clinton-Bush policies that have gotten us into this mess. Listen to what our troops have to say. Listen to what national security experts with a conscience have to say. It's the best 13 minutes you can spend in helping you decide what direction our country needs to take in the 2012 election.


varangianguard said...

GAry, this video makes some really good points.

But, I would go further and say that the US stepped into a lot of this (not just in the Middle East) in 1919 during the Versailles Treaty deliberations. President Wilson made some fine speeches with his "Fourteen Points", then proceeded to allow the other colonial powers to sidestep them. People certainly remember that as well. And, unfortunately, President Truman allowed it to happen again at the end of World War 2.

Still, expecting the national political elite to actually pay attention to long-term trends like that is a fool's errand, in most cases. Newt Gingrich probably wouldn't "get it" and supposedly he's got a doctorate in History.

Jeff Cox said...

Sorry, Gary, but when it comes to defense and foreign policy, Ron Paul is an idiot. A 6-year old playing Modern Warfare 3 could outperform him.

Paul is SO bad and SO completely ignorant of history it's hard to know where to start to go after him, but here are a few pointers:

1. Isolationism may have worked in a time when it took weeks to get from the Eastern Hemisphere to the US. It does not work when a flight takes only hours and a missile mere minutes.

2. EVERY foreign policy action comes with consequences. Every. Single. One. Only a complete moron would argue as Paul does that the solution is to take no more foreign policy actions.

3. Isolationism is what helped get the US in this mess. For starters, the Arabs begged the US to do something about the Treaty of Sevres that broke up the Ottoman Empire, but Wilson did nothing. That US isolationism contributed to World War II goes without saying.

4. Whether the current Muslim hatred for the US is the result of past US actions (very questionable) is irrelevant. They hate us NOW. Pulling back and saying "my bad" won't fix it. Recall that when we left Saudi Arabia, bin Laden stopped using that as an excuse to attack us, but he just switched to some other "grievance." Pulling back will only show weakness (a major consideration in the Arab world) and encourage them further. The best option is to aggressively defend ourselves and our way of life, which is the REAL Islamist problem with the US.

We'd be better off with Obama than Ron Paul.

Gary R. Welsh said...

The military industrial complex counts on people like you to drink the Kool Aid, Jeff.

varangianguard said...

Making an effort to quit being hypocritical with the Third World would (IMO) be a really good start to fixing the last 90 years of US foreign policy in that regards.

I agree that al Qaeda would likely not be mollified, but defending "our way of life" doesn't have to be carried out in the Middle East (just yet).

Jeff Cox said...

That was a quality non-sequitur, Gary.

Jeff Cox said...


1. No, it would not be a "really good start." All it would do is to encourage further encroachment on US interests.

2. Our only job is to act like every other country has throughout history: in our own interests. Hypocrisy (real or imagined) is irrelevant. If that means supporting a murderous US-supporting dictator over a murderous Iran-supporting dictator, so be it.

3. Better to defend our way of life over there than over here. Islamism is by its own definition expansionist. They have no concept of live and let live.

Gary R. Welsh said...

Since the CIA is responsible for creating and funding al Qaeda originally, couldn't it shut them down? Dumb question. My bad.

Jeff Cox said...

Now, now, Gary. You know better than that.

The groups the CIA funded and armed during the Afghan war against the Soviets were headed by pro-US Ahmed Shah Masoud. Al Qaida murdered him on Sept. 10, 2001, likely because they wanted to preclude his use by the US as a weapon against them after Sept. 11. .

Gary R. Welsh said...

No, I'm not kidding. The CIA Bushes and the bin Laden family are long-time business partners. Osama was a key player in their false flag operations.

varangianguard said...


1. Depends upon what your definition of "national interest" is. Seriously, my point is that our "national interest" isn't "everything in the world". There should be a narrower defintion. Acting as an example, rather than as hypocrites, IMO, would be a good step. Who likes a hypocrite?

2. We'll have to disagree here. Would you want a murderous dictator in charge here? Then why support one somewhere else? I cannot fathom why you think this has anything "right" or "valid" stamped on this. Are we the leader of the Free World, or just another wanna-be Empire?

3. While I agree with your view about where to fight (when necessary), I will disagree about over-generalizing about Islam. Religious expansionsims wax and wane, and perhaps fundamentalism is making it wax again, but is it only Islam? And, I don't think we should lump all Muslims together here. It cheapens the argument.

Jeff Cox said...


You cannot judge the rest of the world by what we would want here. The Cuban government wanted Soviet nuclear missiles. Does that mean we should allow it, just because the Cubans ostensibly want it? No.

They may want shar'ia law in the Middle East (and A LOT of them do, as poll after poll and election after election indicate). But that is a major threat to us, as 9/11 showed. We are under no moral or ethical obligation to allow that.

Hypocrisy is irrelevant. Our enemies are exponentially more hypocriical than we are. They don't care. Neither should we.

varangianguard said...

Is that so? I had always thought the Kruschev offered them as a way to show the US that he didn't like US missiles based in Turkey.

I disagree concerning hypocrisy. Sometimes, there would be a line crossed that would impinge upon our "national interest", where we could and should put instruments of foreign policy to good use. But, as a general rule, I'm not for imposing my way of life upon others. We talk a big game about self-determination and freedom, but we rarely seem to allow that to apply to those who believe otherwise.

And, substituting one dictatorship for another hasn't worked over the years, so why continue obviously bankrupt policies over and over again?


Hypocritical christians just love trusting bombs and not their God!

Ron Paul has amazing peaceful ground troops and lots of us will be headed to Iowa to help with the effort!

I don't see how you can be a Christian (Christ like) and support another administration of war mongering.

Jeff Cox said...


Actually, it did work in South Korea. Quite well, in fact. Remember Syngman Rhee? If not for us, they would be part of the hell that is North Korea today.

And arguing against supporting murderous dictators doesn't work when we acquiesced in removing one in Egypt in favor of free elections and get the America-hating Muslim Brotherhood in return.

Jeff Cox said...


If everyone behaved according to Christ's precepts, we wouldn't need a government. But they don't so we do.

And Christ understood that. Separation of church and state, right there in the Bible. Render unto Caesar. Because the government has responsibility for protecting people, it can do things that would be wrong for an individual to do, such as capital punishment.

Think also of St. Augustine's City of God, which enunciated the concept of the just war.

If you want peace, prepare for war. Ron Paul does not understand that.

If you want to ensure the re-election of Barack Obama, vote for Ron Paul.

Gary R. Welsh said...

You miss the point on Mubarak's Egypt, Jeff. He took billions of dollars from the U.S. government annually, most of which benefitted very few Egyptians but made Mubarak and his family extremely wealthy. It was estimated that he and his family had holdings totalling as much as $70 billion. He had a very corrupt government, rigged his last presidential election and jailed his leading opponent on bogus charges. To many Egyptians, the Americans were his enablers. Again, the blowback thing.

Jeff Cox said...

Did I?

You talk about consequences of our actions, Gary. You forget the consequences of non-action.

In the case of Egypt, let me tell you what the likely consequences of not supporting the regime would have been.

1. The continuation of the destructive, anti-American, "Arab socialist" policies of Gamal abd al-Nasser; or, even worse

2. The ascendance of the Muslim Brotherhood, the forerunners of al Qaida and the Iranian mullahs, into power, giving them contyrol over the Suez Canal.

Either way, we would have seen no Camp David Accords and possibly the complete destruction of the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, Israel.

And while that may be OK with an anti-Semite like Ron Paul, it is not OK with the vast majority of Americans.

Talking about not supporting dictators is find and dandy. But except for Israel, that's all there is in the Middle East.

Jeff Cox said...

A little history lesson for y'all who think that our withrawal would earn any good will from the Arab world.

During the Suez Crisis, which pre-dated any US involvement in Egypt, we actually supported Egypt in asserting its control over the Suez Canal over our allies Britain and France. Egypt won that dispute. Our allies were alienated, in the case of France for decades.

What gratitude did that get us from the Arabs? For that matter from the Egyptians?

Zilch. Squat. Nada.

Marycatherine Barton said...

Only Ron Paul can beat Obama. The other idiots share his foreign policy.

varangianguard said...

I'm not an expert on South Korea, but I think that 50+ years of "Americans Get Out!" signs are saying something that we should seriously consider, rather than blithely ignore. What, for example, are two cogent reasons why occupying South Korea is in our national interest? I can think of several, but I am interested in your take.

As far as "free elections" getting American-haters, well, I believe that is some of that "blowback". When people feel disenfranchised, be it by dictators, religious leaders or a "let them eat cake" crowd, especially after a fairly long period of time, one often gets a more radical (or antithetical) alternative. It is a pendulum effect. Swing too far one way, then don't be surprised when physics makes it swing pretty far the other way at some point.

Re: the Suez Crisis. I see. You expect a quid pro quo in statecraft. I don't, necessarily. In this particular case, we are talking about our allies "the evil colonialist overlords" to most of the world's population at the time. For the French, anything we would do in our own interest would have pissed DeGaulle off. Why worry? For the British, what are they going to do to us? Well, back then - nothing. The negatives of not supporting colonialists were minimal at the time. Why do you think that we actually did not support them? Pretty sure the potential negatives were considered somewhere in DC. Americans were more interested in anti-Communism and Nasser held out a lick that it was the British impeding his interest in joining against the Soviets. America supported Egypt because DC believed that it was in our "national interest" to do so. Turns out that assessment was incorrect, but that is not surprising when it comes to US foreign policy. We rarely pay enough attention to what is going on elsewhere, instead overly focused only upon ourselves.

Now, for Egypt, you would have expected gratitude? I would posit that they would have considered this a LONG OVERDUE keeping of some wild promises made by President Wilson in 1919. You aren't considering that Nasser might have had an alternate point of view, or you are ignoring it. I agree that Egypt didn't fawn over us with any thanks. But, I believe that they believed that none were earned because the support was about 37 years too late. He played us, but then we made it so easy.


I don't like pre-emptive wars in direct violation of the Constitution such as Iraq.

We had no evidence of WMD's. We had no Congressional approval for war.


WE KILLED 1 MILLION IRAQI'S and many of them were innocents they callously call collateral damage.

Now we "think" Iran has nuclear bombs, but we have absolutely zero evidence. So based on a hunch, we are to go to war?

I am ready to trust God, pray for peace, and hire the wise, kind, and very principled grandfather to be my president.

In the meantime, rocketry that detects and intercepts missles sounds like a good thing to own.

Jeff Cox said...


Assuming for the sake of argument that your description of the Egyptian response to the Suez Crisis is accurate, then we should believe they would have a more appreciative response now because ...?

BTW -- right now, the South Koreans love our troops. Saber rattling by Kim can have that effect.

Jeff Cox said...


The "wise, kind, and very principled grandfather" who thinks 9/11 was an inside job?

I'll take Obama. So would most of the country. I'll give Ron Paul credit, though. It takes talent and effort to be worse than Obama. Before Ron Paul, I didn't think it was even possible.

As conservative blogger John Hawkins pointed out, in November 2012, Obama could have died and his campaign been suspended, and he would still take at least 40 states from Ron Paul.

Citizen Kane said...

Jeff, maybe one day you'll realize that war is just a game and we are the pawns (or cannon fodder) - the Saudi's think we are just hired help (white slaves in their vernacular) just like all of the other foreign hired help.

Frankly, I am surprised you don't like Obama, since he surpassed George Bush as a warmongering, torture loving, American citizen killing President (though I vacillate about which is worse - saying that you can kill an American citizen (and doing it) or pretending that you didn't kill an American citizen (Pat Tillman).

Marycatherine Barton said...

Adding to Citizen Kane's comment, according to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in FINAL DAYS,
the globalist Republican Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said that soldiers are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.

Marycatherine Barton said...

Unlike Ron Paul, President Obama, Kissinger, Gingrich, Romney, and others running for president, R., to the best of my reckoning, work for/are beholden to the international money powers, which, to quote Chris Moore at, are hell-bent on warmongering in order to make nations and individuals slaves to debt.