Bruce Ramsey thinks so, in a thought-provoking editorial column. Let's examine it.
While Ramsey argues Paul's "noninterventionist [foreign] policy is too radical a change for Republicans," he seems to embrace a healthy portion of Paul's thinking. In weighing the motivations for radical Islamic hatred of the United States he says, "they hate us because of what our government has done in their part of the world."
Such thinking would be easier to embrace if the statements of al-Qaeda and other radical Muslims didn't themselves follow a wandering path of evolving and changing grievances against the United States presence in the Middle East and the West in general. There are many reasons radical Muslims don't like Western Civilization, and the United States in particular; few of which are going to change much no matter what realistic changes we might make in American policy in the Middle East.
In today's globalized economy, complete with the ubiquitous presence of American pop-culture in various forms, we are not going to simply abandon an American presence in prominent regions of the world. Given the strategic and economic importance of the Middle East it's clear we're there to stay, even if that presence is open to debate and potential change. We're no more likely to cut close ties to the region than we are likely to pull up stakes in Europe or the Pacific Rim.
The counter argument from Paul and those of similar mind is "if you don't aggravate folks you don't get bit." It's a simple saying that likewise serves as a succinct reminder of why the policy thinking of libertarians never works in the complex world of foreign policy. It's all idealism, no reality.
We've been having national arguments about the role of America in the world since the Founding. Yet even as soon as our conflicts with the Barbary Pirates, America realized it couldn't just retreat behind assorted bodies of water and proclaim nicely "please leave us alone!" We tried it gamely for a bit more recently in both World Wars, to no avail in either case. History has taught us it doesn't work.
Ramsey gets to a related topic as well: the best strategic and tactical means by which to combat the threat of radical Islamic terrorism. Ramsey appears to favor the "law enforcement" approach pursued during the Clinton years:
Fighting such gangs is the job of cops, security workers, customs agents, G-men, diplomats and alert citizens. It is an important task, but we are not at war. America hasn't been attacked in nearly six years.
A reasonable argument can be made that we have not been attacked for six years because of aggressive, even war-like, efforts outside our borders to prevent such acts. While we may not be fighting a traditional war, key elements of the United States government are most definitely on a war footing, albeit an atypical one. Horrific terrorist bombings in Madrid, London, Bali, and other locales are a grim reminder radical Islam has not been sitting on its heels since 9/11.
At its heart, aside from all the media-adored debates about WMD's and the like, invading Iraq was about a changed calculus regarding acceptable risk. Radical Islam declared war on the United States long before 9/11, attacking American interests abroad with little more response than a few tardy cruise missiles and the occasional indictment. After 9/11 could we really live and let-live with an unstable tyrant, with a track record of: invading his neighbors, supporting assorted terrorists, attempting to assassinate former Presidents, corrupting the UN Oil for Food program (gaming it for the benefit of his regime), refusing to comply with weapons inspectors after the unverified dismantling of his WMD programs, and blatantly defying UN resolution after UN resolution?
In the post 9/11 world people can disagree about that, but national security conservatives in particular made the clear decision that offensive rather than defensive action was most appropriate. Even George Tenet's recent book affirms as much: "'It was never a question of a known, imminent threat; it was about an unwillingness to risk surprise.'"
Without doubt criticism can and should be made of post-combat phase management in Iraq. Likewise, political reality alone will dictate that any future President contemplating another preemptive war in the coming decades will do so with great caution. Yet, Ramsey says Republicans should "jettison" the idea altogether.
It's very difficult to see national security conservatives making such a leap. Take for example this not impossible scenario for the next president: Iran is increasingly unstable and bellicose in its conduct of foreign affairs. It has provided new and more advanced weapons supplies to its surrogates, Hezbollah and Hamas, with the threat of pending attacks on Israel. It is posturing its military and threatening to forcefully halt shipping in the Persian Gulf to inflict economic harm on the West.
Should the US strike first in targeted air and sea attacks to preempt the Iranian military, secure shipping lanes, and threaten Iran with immediate harm to its vital oil industry infrastructure?
I for one don't want that perhaps least of the bad options off the table in such a circumstance. Indeed, operations of similar scope have been conducted in the past against Iran. If Republicans can and should reject Ron Paul's advice for Middle Eastern policy, should they not likewise reject calls to rule out preemptive war as an option of last resort?
This is one area libertarian types find themselves in starkest discord with many in the Republican coalition. Their view is to keep to ourselves as much as possible and avoid antagonizing the natives abroad. It's a nice idea. But it never works, which is why Republicans should tell Ron Paul to take a hike. Isolationism or more polite variations of it never accomplish their goals. They certainly won't start doing so now in the most interconnected world humanity has yet known.
****
Note: Bruce Ramsey is the lone conservative on the Seattle Times editorial board; obviously a valuable addition. We agree on many things. But he being a self-described libertarian leaning conservative, and me being a more traditional, robust national security conservative, we don't agree much on such issues. The fact we can do so publicly and privately without questioning each others motives or conservatism (all while remaining personally agreeable) is the kind of dynamic that is the opposite of the Far Right v. the Mainstreamers debate that is so lamentable.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 30, 2007 11:35 PM | Email This“Paul rejects President Bush's gum-drop idea that the terrorists hate us for our freedom. They hate us because of what our government has done in their part of the world. In the May 15 debate, Paul said America was attacked on 9/11 ‘because we were over there.’”
Right. And the French hate us for what we’ve done in France. And the Somali’s hated us for our perfidy in trying to keep them alive during Clinton’s aid mission ala “Blackhawk Down.”
Have you… or Paul… ever spent any appreciable time in the area? Months…. Years?
Based on Paul’s reasoning, and your parroting of it, we should expect an attack from Germany any second… or certainly Japan, right?
It may be that you do not support the war now… it may be that you’ve never supported it.
But here’s the layout: politically, the war has been turned into the defining issue for the 08 elections. It shouldn’t be, of course, because the default position of EVERY candidate is going to be withdrawal from Iraq so these people can fend for themselves.
After all, that’s what we do these days… go in, make promises, get people to believe in us; and then our media, working hard along with the left to implement whatever the enemy’s agenda may be; erodes confidence in the mission; belittles those performing said mission; does everything they can to attack our leadership so that said leadership may be discredited across the globe (purely for the most altruistic of reasons, you understand, democrats would NEVER exploit the war… The blood…The pain… The agony of those serving in said war, along with their families at home, right?)
So, ultimately, the focus of whoever is running in 08 will be to get us out… so we can stand by and watch slaughter and carnage that makes Darfur look like a fender-bender.
Much of this is the fault of the Administration.They’ve lost control of the message, and much of the mission.
Republicans will be blamed for that as well, of course, because all that bogus post 9/11 “togetherness” was a pretext for what we’re seeing now. Dick Durbin compared us to Nazis… we get swastikas on Memorial Day.
I missed any mention of that connection. I guess I just wasn’t observant enough.
As a Republican (Former ED of the WSRP during the 2000 cycle, actually) I would rather lose the 08 race doing the right thing… then win it doing the will of those who, for political reasons, grease their political skids on the blood of the 25,000 or so killed and wounded entirely for the purposes of assuming political power.
If they had not found the Iraq War to resonate with the people (and, since the media has been acting like the PR arm of the DNC since 03 or so, that was unlikely) they would have found some other issue to achieve the same thing.
Rep. Paul’s opportunism on the issue isn’t about saving us from ourselves. If his message was substantial, it would have a much more receptive audience.
Both his position and yours are far too simplistic. My up-close and personal observation of these people shows, that in large part, they hate Western Civilization generally, and they hate us specifically because we lead that civilization (being the world’s only super-power has its own rewards). They hate the idea of equality for women. They hate the idea of democracy. They hate the possibility that both of these things may start coming their way… and yes, they hate it enough to kill us for it… to kill us to stop it from heading their way.
If we lose in 08, unlike most Republicans, I don’t see it as the end of the world. Democrats have run on a platform of getting us out of Iraq (which they haven’t) and their superior ethics (yeah, right…) so, at the end of the day, Mr. Paul will utilize his right to expound on his view of Iraq (which the media, being ever helpful, will trumpet far more than it deserves) and the GOP will exercise our right to ignore him… and those lionizing him.
Simple, really.
You are conflating a large number of things concerning foreign policy. WW2 was a declared war and it was ended decisively. Foreign interventions and undeclared, so-called police actions, during the last 60 years are different things entirely.
Is it really that difficult to question our activist foreign policy and understand that it does have consequences, often negative? Sometimes decades in the brewing?
Honestly, your up close dealings in a shooting war make you the LEAST qualified or at best, painfully biased, when it comes to deciding policy. Once you get men shooting at each other; is there any room left for reason? I have no doubt you "hate" the enemy that wishes to kill you. I daresay, the feeling is mutual.
It is your stance that's very simplistic: "they hate us so we must destroy them before they destroy us". That's pretty damn simple. A little too simple.
Such is war. Being able to rise above that is the job of a statesman, Ron Paul is leading the way and Americans are starting to see the light.
Posted by: Ray Harmon on May 31, 2007 12:54 AMJust make sure your kids are are in harms way chicken hawk! And if your young enough make sure you take "a hike" down to the recuriting office and sign up! Ron Paul 2008!
Posted by: joe on May 31, 2007 02:00 AM
If people in Middle Eastern nations, shared our philosophy and had advanced to the point that we have where commerce and civil discourse is a more effective means of working with your fellow man, there would be no issue. But that's not reality in the Muslim world where there are daily sermons of indoctrinated hatred and a strict religious code.
Muslims have been aggressive towards Western ideas for more than 40 years. It's their intolerance of our philosophy and culture that has created the Osama Bin Ladens and Ayatollahs. And it's that decades old daily dose of hatred that fuels the Anti-American, Anti-Israel, Anti-Western rage.
Ron Paul and Bruce Ramsey are unwilling to accept the deeply entrenched and widespread philosophy of Islamic hatred, that is the most prevalent belief system throughout the Middle East.
But that won't make it go away.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 31, 2007 04:39 AMRon Paul recognizes that our attempts to coerce through sanctions and military action harm those average citizens, and pushes them intellectually closer to extremists such as Bin Laden. As a nation, we shouldn't fear the wrath of a single psychopath. But if our policies make that psychopath a hero instead of a pariah, we owe it to ourselves to seriously question those policies.
Wouldn't you rather show potential converts to radical Islam that there are constructive options to a philosophy of nihilism and death, as opposed to engaging in a last-man-standing conflict that will only nurture hatred in another generation of jihadists?
Posted by: BH Day on May 31, 2007 05:09 AM911 was an inside job.
Ron Paul in '08.
Posted by: Independent voter on May 31, 2007 05:22 AMBush has no credibility. He has a foreign policy that he won't even follow. According to the Bush doctrine about terrorist states and threats to us. Iran and Syria should have already attacked and defeated. Now the Bush doctrine is OK, but to enforce it you need to have the stomach for going in and defeating countries and killing a large amount of that countries population. If you don't then all you can do is drive around it and get blown up by IEDs.
At first, America just paid the extortion fees that bought us safe passage into the Med but when those agreements were tossed aside at the whim of the Barbery "States", Jefferson sent American warships over there to "walk softly, but carry a big stick".
I don't think Ron Paul is a pacific as you portray him. I think he would gladly unleash hell under a formal declaration of war, granted by congress at his request. In the first debate, he even said if we want to go to war, fine, just declare war, go over and win it, and come home.
He is a constitutionalist. And that makes lots of sense to a broad range of Americans from both sides of the aisle. And it is the popular support for dismantling the overgrown federal beuracracy that scares the people in power.
But let's not forget that his best policies for America are his economic and monetary policies. Moving back to a non-inflationary dollar would be huge for the poor and middle class.
Posted by: Dave on May 31, 2007 06:04 AMThe democrats in congress aren't standing firmly on their anti-war agenda which only shows that once they were elected this past election, they softened on their stance. What a surprise. What makes H. Clinton and Obama any different? (except Kucinich who truly believes against the war)
Ron Paul's idea is just so refreshing. He grabs hold of the major principles and stands firm on them.
Posted by: rick on May 31, 2007 06:20 AMTruer words could not be written.
There is plenty to like about Ron Paul....but the thought of allowing the ENEMY to freely organize anywhere in the world via non-intervention and then WAIT for them to come to us on our homeland is S-T-U-P-I-D!! Ron Paul makes some very appealing soundbites about this approach but think about it from the perspective of our vast open borders. I prefer the philosophy of keeping pressure on them wherever they are so they cannot sufficiently organize to launch a direct attack on us.
This is a Holy War of sorts that will sadly never end. We can only hope to contain it. And the idea that we KNOW we have an enemy who hates us...yet we do not confront them head-on wherever they are...is chilling and naive. But it is an appealing position for an Election. No Doubt.
Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in chronological
order.
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com
Posted by: goldenequity on May 31, 2007 06:25 AMHere is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in chronological
order.
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com
Posted by: goldenequity on May 31, 2007 06:26 AMRussia, China, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Brazil, Australia, England, Germany, France,...
I say nuke 'em all now before things get worse.
Jesus would have wanted it that way.
And Paris Hinton above seems to agree.
Posted by: Richard on May 31, 2007 06:32 AMNon-intervention "never works"? Tell that to countries like Switzerland and Sweden, which avoided HUGE conflicts that took place right in their back yards. And unlike us, they don't even have two oceans separating them from any credible threat.
The U.S. stayed out of numerous European and Asian wars until well into the 20th Century. World Wars I and II were both examples of the folly, not the soundness, of intervention. World War I sent 126,000 Americans to their deaths for no security benefit and also led to WWII. It was an interventionist folly.
WWII came to America in good part due to a clash between Japan and the U.S. in Asia. Intervention in China (troops in China provided us with no security benefit) and the Philippines (troops in the Philippines provided us with no security benefit) helped drag us into another war which took hundreds of thousands of American lives.
Conflicts after that are hardly worth mentioning as they were all frivolous interventions that simply put Americans in more danger instead of protecting them.
Also, how can you conclude that non-intervention does not work with the Middle East when terrorist attacks against us started AFTER we started intervening? When you jump into other peoples' conflicts, you can expect to be targeted. That's just how the world is, plain and simple.
"Isolationism or more polite variations of it never accomplish their goals."
Interventionism doesn't accomplish its supposed goals of keeping Americans safe. It drags us into more conflicts and puts Americans in ever more danger.
Posted by: Garry on May 31, 2007 06:44 AMBoth on the isolationist branch of the far left, oops, Buchanan is an Independent? Or was it just when he was running?
I thought the far left read history. I was wrong.
Hey, guys, history has taught us- both the world and the US, that it is better to fight evil before it gets strong. Don't pacify and don't isolate.
Those above, there is nothing better I would like than having the US secure its own borders and quit police action around the world. However, whether you are a Democrat, a Ron Paul Democrat or a Republican, each party realizes that police action has been given to the United States of America, whether we want it or not.
Posted by: swatter on May 31, 2007 07:09 AMApparently he cannot comprehend that in a nuclear equipped missile delivery system/suicide bomber delivery system world, the two oceans do not afford the USA the safety they did for about 200 years.
Apparently he cannot comprehend the violent, take no prisoners, philosophy of the Quran and the acceptance thereof of true believers, combined with the age old strategy of tyrants to gin up a foreign boogeyman to keep domestic ills in the background.
Mix nuclear capability with targeted demonizing and Ron Paul comes across as naive to the inth, as do the simplistic and silly Democrat/anti war bedwetters.
Thank God there are adults who can critically think and have an interest in our survival.
Posted by: Hank on May 31, 2007 07:09 AMWe're hated for not continuing support of the Afghanistan government after the threat of the USSR went away, letting a civil war erupt.
We're hated because we're still in Iraq at the behest of their government to try to avoid a civil war.
We're hated for letting Saddam invade Kuwait and threaten Saudi Arabia.
We're hated for staying in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait after the first Gulf War to protect from Saddam repeating his invasion of Kuwait.
We're hated for having an official policy of regime change in Iraq.
We're hated for not helping the locals change the regime in Iraq.
We're hated for finally executing regime change in Iraq.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Seems to me that no matter what we do we're hated. That's the central thread we're dealing with - irrational hatred of anything "Western" or "non-Arabic Muslim". And when we abide by the customs of their country - women covered up, no alcohol, stop work 5 times a day, no images of people, even leaving Bibles at home - we're still hated as infidels and invaders.
As far as the whole Israel/Palestine conflict goes, why isn't the hatred directed at the UN? They set up Israel, and didn't follow through on setting up an Arab state of Palestine. Israel would NOT EVEN EXIST if it wasn't for the UN's resolutions. So why not direct their hatred at the UN, rather than Israel, or the US?
For example, when Ehud Barak offered as a STARTING POINT a full 95% of what the Palestinian appologists demanded, the PLO, Hamas, and most Arab states STILL REFUSED to even ACKNOWLEDGE the existence of Israel. One side is talking about leaving most of the disputed territories immediately, and complete withdrawals over a short time, going back to the pre-1967 borders, and the other side doesn't even acknowledge the existence of the first.
I think the wishful thinking that "if the US would just leave the Middle East all would be good!" is seriously flawed. We're hated for interfering by protecting mulsims in Bosnia and Somalia, and hated for not protecting muslims in Iraq or Kuwait.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Essentially, we're hated for not what we've done, but for what we are - we're not muslim. We have different values and a different culture. We have tolerance. We allow individual freedoms. We believe ALL men AND women - of every race and creed - are created equal. We represent what they despise. It's not our actions, it's our very NATURE that is the source of their hatred. The very freedoms that we take for granted - and are used every day by those protesting the US' current involvement in the Middle East - are the source of the hatred against the US.
Here we have parades celebrating the gay lifestyle. They stone not just gays, but if you're even raped by a gay man you're sentenced to that grisly death.
We allow people to live together ourside of marriage. They will stone a woman for simply talking to a man.
We have women heading up some of our largest corporations, leading countries. They forbid women from even opening a book.
We encourage families to share their values and go to church together - they force families apart, even in worship.
We allow you to choose your own path to spiritual enlightenment, even if that means no path. They will behead you if you do not submit to every written word of Mohammed.
We will let you make a movie criticizing religions, governments, companies, cultural values, even the legal system. They will kill you for simply drawing an image of Mohammed.
We protect and honor religious and cultural shrines, artwork, and buildings because of the history and knowledge they provide. They blow up anything from a different culture or religion.
We allow political dissent, free speech, and provide the right to a trial by a jury of your peers. They summarily execute any who speak against the leadership, and your right to trial is a right to have a cleric decide whether you're shot, hung, or stoned.
In light of this we might as well just do what the heck we want strictly for our own interests, because whatever we do it's obviously not going to change the radical muslim's view of the US.
Because we're damned if we do, and we're damned if we don't.
The "terrorist movement" is not so much an organized front as a series of groups with different aims and goals. Sometimes they work together, some times they fight each other.
These groups see the US as hostile to there ends, whether it is Israel, troops in Saudi Arabia, or actions in Iran in the 70's etc. Foreign policy has consequences.
The question however is not why they "hate us", they pretty much tell us that, the question is "is it worth it?" For example before WW2 we embargoed Japan and begin supporting the targets of it's aggression. It was pretty well know that this was risky and may result in an attack on the US and plunge us into war. However it is pretty clear that it was worth.
The debate we need to have is not why they hate us, but what risks are we willing to take and what consequences are acceptable to achieve our goals (and what those goals should be)
And Dave, No it doesn't. Every single poll I have ever seen shows broad support for government action in many areas. Even Republicans support government action far above what libertarians expose. Paul is going to get a few percent in the primary then go away. IF he decides to prolong his loss and run as an independent he will not get 1. Show me one study, one poll, that shows Americans want the federal government to be reduced to practically nothing. I would be surprised if even a quarter of the populous feels that way.
Posted by: Giffy on May 31, 2007 07:28 AMWhether Ron's ideals that are rooted in that original premise are desireable is worthy of an intellectual debate. The PROBLEM is that this isn't the early nineteenth century -- either here or abroad. The Barbary pirates justified their preying upon the infidels of the US based upon the Quran -- and the payment of the jiyza -- that brought us into conflict with adherants of Islam early into our national history. So, unless you want to REALLY drive back, retreat to an uber-isolationist America (no international trade, etc. -- and, not that, in a technological world, that would be feasible), we're stuck where we are at right now.
You know, the books that inlcude pieces by the head of the Bin Laden CIA unit and the top expert on suicidal terrorism.
Cliff Notes: They don't attack us because we are free and we have R-rated movies. They attack us because we have been involved over there for 50 years supporting corrupt regimes and performing various operations to overthrough both dictators and elected leaders.
Also, don't forget that we basically created and trained Osama. And don't forget we were buddies with Saddam not too long ago. Hmmm...
You can't say that they wouldn't leave us alone if we left because it is impossible to prove. It is just your opinion. We have been there for 50 years. On the contrary, I can say that that they will continue to target and attack us if we stay (as evidenced by history).
People always say that it would be a bloodbath over there if we left, what is it right now?
And aren't these the same people who told us Iraq was going to take 3 months, the oil would pay the bills, Iraq had WMD, etc. I think it is time to look at someone who actually has a track record of making good decisions instead of trusting the same idiots who got us into this mess under false pretenses.
Posted by: Colin on May 31, 2007 08:23 AMHe wants to continue intelligence gathering and action on real threats to the U.S. He is not a pacifist. He just doesn't want adventurism for the sake of corporate profit or political grandstanding. He is a student of Jefferson's presidency and is well aware of the Barbary Pirates. This is another phoney smear piece to avoid acknowledging the utter failure of policies and candidates you have supported.
Posted by: Greg W on May 31, 2007 08:27 AMThey hate us for overthrowing a democratically elected government in Iran and installing the brutal Shah.
They hate us for harboring the Shah after they got rid of him.
They hate us for supporting radical Islamists like Osama bin Laden during the Afghan War.
They hate us for supporting radical Islamic regimes like the Saudi family and regime in the UAE.
They hate us for supporting Saddam Hussein during his worst atrocities, including those atrocities that we vilified him for to make the case for war.
They hate us for occupying their lands.
They hate us for supporting Israel.
They hate us for a decade of sanctions in Iraq that withheld resources and medicines to the Iraqi people.
I think that is a more accurate, yet incomplete, list. I suggest the naysayers read those books that Ron Paul assigned to Rudy Giuliani. Well researched and accurate testimony, to say the least. I would also recommend Andrew Bacevich's "The New American Militarism."
Posted by: Levi Wilson on May 31, 2007 08:35 AMIsrael is a democratically run nation- formed under UN authority and has a right to exist AND to defend itself.
Iarqi sanctions allowed medicines, food and other necessities to enter Iraq. Saddam siphoned off damn near all of these necessities and accepting the argument that the USA is to blame is pure crapola!
Posted by: John425 on May 31, 2007 08:57 AM"Although little known in the West, Qutb is famous in the Arab world, where his criticism of the West and calls for a new society based around pure Islamic ideals remain influential today.
Dubbed "Osama's brain" by the Weekly Standard magazine, Qutb was also a forceful advocate of jihad as a form of resistance to governments that claim to be Muslim but whose actions are judged to stray from true Islam.
Sajjan Gohel, director for international security at the Asia-Pacific Foundation, said Qutb's ideas are crucial to understanding what Gohel calls "bin Ladenism," which he defines as a transnational strategy involving a long-term guerrilla war of attrition bonded by a central ideology.
"Sayyid Qutb's role in inspiring the Islamic resurgence of the last generation should not be underestimated or ignored," Gohel said.
Fateful visit to U.S.
Qutb's journey to radicalism started in 1948 when the Egyptian government sent the 42-year-old school inspector to study in the United States.
The time proved to be formative for Qutb, who had closely followed American popular culture and at the time viewed the United States as a somewhat positive influence, especially when contrasted with the European colonialism he had witnessed growing up in the Middle East.
But things started to sour even before he reached U.S. shores -- Qutb was repulsed by an American woman's drunken attempts to seduce him during his sea voyage and, once on U.S. soil, he was shocked at the racism he encountered in the still-segregated country.
Qutb found himself more and more outraged by what he saw as American greed -- one example being the lush lawns of Greeley, Colo., where he studied. He also found moral dissipation, including in such seemingly innocent events as dances held in small-town churches.
Returning to Egypt in 1951, he wrote a book, "The America I Have Seen," in which he denounced, among other things, jazz music and what he called the overt sexuality in American culture, particularly among women.
As for American men, he described them as brutish and sports-obsessed, decrying their "primitiveness" when they watched football games, boxing or "bloody, monstrous wrestling matches."
Radicalized
In Egypt, Qutb refashioned himself a militant Muslim, following up his anti-U.S. treatise with his seminal book, the title of which is translated as "Milestones" or "Signposts along the Road." It begins:
"Mankind today is on the brink of a precipice ... because humanity is devoid of those vital values which are necessary not only for its healthy development but also for its real progress. ... [The West] knows that it does not possess anything which will satisfy its own conscience and justify its existence. ... It is essential for mankind to have new leadership!"
At around the same time, in 1952, a coup masterminded by a young army officer, Gamal Abdel Nasser, threw out the occupying British and their puppet king, Farouk, replacing them with a socialist-tinged and secularist regime. As time went on, Nasser and his henchmen repressed Islamists, who they saw as the main threat to their power.
The Islamists, including the Muslim Brotherhood, which had evolved from a charitable organization into a political force, were fiercely opposed to Nasser's pan-Arab ideals, which sought to downplay Islam (though it remained the official religion).
Qutb, along with thousands of fellow members of the Muslim Brotherhood, was imprisoned
RP has the LEAST chance of winning the candidacy for the Republicans than ANYONE ELSE currently running. A random person picked from the phone book would have a greater chance. RP currently polls at 0% or as an asterisk.
I might not be Rasmussen or George Gallup, but not ONE of my conservative friends EVER brings him up in conversation. The only "buzz" about RP is the buzz artificially created by his sycophants who feel the need to spam and spew their programmed responses.
We'll see Chelsea Clinton in the White House as President before we see the Small Man from Texas.
Of course, this is only my opinion. I'm sure the super-secret Rothschilds will do their best to suppress the groundswell of support for RP - so hidden than it never appears in polls.
Posted by: steve miller on May 31, 2007 09:27 AMRead the transcript of the latest demands from Al Qaeda's spokesman.
We're dead if we do not stop all relationships with the apostate regimes - Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Sudan, Nigeria. And countries like India, Ukraine, Russia, the Balkans, even Spain.
We're dead if we do not stop all relationships with Israel - a sovreign nation set up by that paragon of the Left, the UN.
We're dead if we do not shield ALL our broadcasts from the entire Islamic world, which includes all those countries above.
Bottom line: they hate our way of life, they hate the way the modern UN works, where countries meet and work together. They hate freedoms, they convert by the sword.
Bury your head in the sand, if you want. They're TELLING US exactly why they hate us. I'll take them at their word first before hyper-analyzing my own "guilt"...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on May 31, 2007 09:49 AMRather than attempt to reason with them - fight them. They want to destroy the West. Why do you want to go along with that?
Posted by: steve miller on May 31, 2007 10:10 AMThey also hate us for exporting Brittany and Baywatch, into a society that is simultaneously terrified of, and obsessed with, female sexuality.
The question nobody has asked yet: What Would Goldwater Do?
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on May 31, 2007 10:19 AM(Hint: It wasn't about foreign policy. In fact, Carter was in the midst of reversing our "intereventionist policy" at a breakneck pace. You can tell how much the muslim clerics respected the change - which is not at all.)
Go read the suicide notes of the original 9-11 highjackers. (Not the press accounts. Read the translations of the actual writings.)
Read the actual translated broadcasts from Osama and his people. (Again, read the transcripts. Not the press accounts which rarely tell the real story.)
The only thing that will happen if we abandon a pro-active policy in the middle east will be a death sentence to all Israelis and moderate moslems in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. It won't stop the attacks from happening. They will only become more focused.
But it is not this type of hate that drives men to leave their lives, hijack a plane, and kill themselves.
Our constant military action in the middle east only convinces more people that it is worth giving up their life to protect themselves from the West.
the more lives we destroy them more people will be willing to sacrifice their life to eliminate the 'threat' that is the west.
Posted by: Visker on May 31, 2007 11:26 AMHey. Here's some more rope.
There's no better way to put this guy's candidacy in the crapper than to let his supporters run their mouths uncensored.
Posted by: jimg on May 31, 2007 11:34 AMYou need to dig deeper to see the meaning of what is really happening and what Ron is saying. Our soldiers are the only ones from the U.S. risking their lives for our benefit. Why are they not important enough to be thought of higher than any foreigner. Get out or throw the kitchen sink at this mess, mourn the losses on both sides and move on. The U.S. can not sustain anything less and Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate that knows the cost of all of this. Morally, financially, and patriotically.
WWII happened on each end of the earth and ended a lot quicker than the costly police action we are involved in. Our government is getting rich of off this and the U.S. is beyond bankrupt. God help our children.
For the record, Ron Paul voted to go to WAR with Afghanistan and when you show me exactly where he said he wouldn't vote to go war to defend America and our allies for the purpose of our freedom, I will stop defending Ron Paul. Please dig deeper sir.
Posted by: Brian on May 31, 2007 12:06 PMSomalia was a prime example of getting involved where we had no business being, and in the end the U.S. was viewed as just one more warlord vying for dominance in the region. That sort of thing puts us at risk needlessly. If we wind up maneuvering ourselves into a military conflict with Iran we'll pay dearly for it.
If we want to wage perpetual war for perpetual peace, then by all means let's charge abroad and insert ourselves into every corner of the globe. We'll run the national debt into the galaxy and go broke trying to do it, and we'll be on high terror alert every day of our lives, but okay. Or, we can look critically at our history of interventionism and choose to move away from policies of regime change, nation-building, preemption and coercion, in favor of minding our own affairs and providing a strong defense.
Posted by: David on May 31, 2007 12:07 PMYou youngsters supporting Chamberlain, er, I mean Ron Paul should check your history.
(I know they don't teach it in school anymore - it conflicts with too much of the teachers unions socialist agenda - but the books are still out there and there are even still people alive who lived through WWII if you look around.)
Isolationism doesn't work - not for large countries with an interest in actually being successful. Yes, it worked for Sweden (though Hitler would have probably gotten to them eventually) and it might work in backwater countries like Costa Rica, but not for real countries with large economies, abundant natural resources, etc. You stick your head in the sand and it gets cut off at the neck. It's that simple.
Also, for the genius that said the U.S. only got into WWII because of Japan, please do your reading. Hitler had designs on the U.S. that were well documented. Had he been allowed to conquer Europe and rebuild, we'd all be speaking German today. (Although given you enspouse a position which would almost 100% guarantee the slaughter of the millions of jews that are living in the middle east, you might not mind that.)
Posted by: johnny on May 31, 2007 12:47 PMThat area has to be controlled.
Sweeden was neutral your right but why do you decide to judge Ron Paul for a report that was written by our own government. I would rather the U.S. be its own toughest critic. Please do more research on Ron Paul before you make up your mind that he would not fight for freedom. Not supporting NATO does not make anyone an isolationist to the extremes you proclaim. As for as I can tell, we are NATO.
And as far as the U.S. only getting into WWII because of Japan, may I recomend the book "Winds over Sand". FDR ousted the competent commander with a "Yes Man" so our back door would be open to the japs. FDR got the "isolationist" U.S. support to get in to the war.
Its obvious Hitler was going to attack the United States when all he ever did was break treaty after treaty. My point...The U.S. has never been isolationist and Ron Paul has never been either. He just doesn't like sticking his nose where it doesn't belong, and he doesn't like whats happening in Iraq. If this is a war, then lets treat it like one instead of the police action crap that has been going on.
Rest assured, the whole reason he wants the power taken back from the president and back to congress is so congress can vote on it and one persons agenda will not be served.
Really? And just how did Congress vote regarding Iraq?
Seriously, you guys claim all these pure, conservative things about Ron Paul, but a quick review of your points reveals them to be nothing but the same tripe we've heard from the Left for the last several years.
Illegal/unconstitutional war - which it's not, and never has been. Invading a country that wasn't a threat to us. Supported Afghanistan, but not Iraq. (and why? Was Afghanistan a threat to us? No? Its government and its support for terrorism was, you say? And that's different than Iraq how?) Bush out of control. Alienating our allies. blah, blah, blah, blah-effing blah. It's the same, tired crap.
No thanks. But hey, keep talking. Let everybody know what you stand for. Hook up with your brethren on the far-left. Run a Nader/Paul ticket so you bleed votes from both sides.
And have fun with your 3 percent.
Posted by: jimg on May 31, 2007 01:31 PMName something "right" this admin has done lately. Define conservative. letting 12 million law breakers isn't so conservative now is it.
Posted by: brian on May 31, 2007 02:51 PMLike illegal immigration and entitlement reform.
Methinks WA DC does not have the nerve to cut baby boomer entitlements, so to afford them, WA DC seems to think massive importation of illegals will provide the social security tax revenues to cover their cowardice.
Do we have any real leaders who will tell the public the truth? Which is: slash illegal immigration and slash entitlements, or bring em in and kiss up to the baby boomers, er voters.....
Real leaders tell the truth to the public; do we have real leaders? Apparently not.......
Posted by: Hank on May 31, 2007 03:05 PMFact is, Dubya has done to the Conservative cause what no Democrat could do. He has taken our economic and military strength and wasted it on a meaningless war that makes us no safer. In fact it will make us less secure. The Iraqi children who see their relatives and parents maimed or killed do not make the disctinction that 'oh, that bomb came from those friendly Americans; I'm sure they meant well anyway.' Sadly, they will grow up to be the terrorists that my children will have to fight.
He has taken the enormous goodwill that our country received from around the world after 9/11 and squandered it on absolute folly.
He has taken the once proud moniker of 'Conservative' and sullied it until it is practically indistinguishable from well-meaning, but misguided Liberalism. In fact, you could argue the Iraqi War has been the absolute pinnacle of Wilsonian statecraft.
His, not Rep. Paul's, stance is one of true naivete. If a 'well-meaning Socialist' country came to 'rescue us' from our 'evil Capitalist
oppressors' and 'bring us true democracy,' would we just sit and take it? Hell no! We would fight them and their 'good intentions' all the way back to the nearest ocean. Why is it so hard to understand it when others do the same?
Rep. Paul may well be the least likely to win the GOP nomination (even though his conservative credentials are practically beyond reproach). But, ironically, he is the only GOP candidate with any chance to win in '08. His upstanding principles and devotion to constitutional liberty have earned my vote. I hope everyone will take the time to seriously consider him for their vote as well.
Regards.
Posted by: Chris on May 31, 2007 03:20 PMWhen did I say we should give in. All I said was we know why they "hate us" and it is pretty much for what you said, though I think the media broadcasts are on the low end. They have concrete objections to US policy and they are using terrorism and other means to get what they want. Not really all that different form another actor on the world stage.
Look foreign policy is a game of calculated risks. IF you support one state, say Saudi Arabia, you can get better access to a vital recourse, oil. However by doing so you increase your risk of terrorism. At this point that is probably a good risk to take. Now should we do what we can to avoid having to do that sure. But it is not about giving in to Al Quada, its about determining how much risk we are willing to take for certain rewards or what we can do to mitigate those risks. Nonsensical talks about hating us for our friends or good and evil is mostly irrelevant.
Saying they hate us for x, is like saying Japan hates us for being in the Pacific. So what. The question is whether we are willing to be there despite that.
Posted by: Giffy on May 31, 2007 03:28 PMHow...quaint.
If you want to "be conservative" and vote for RP - go ahead. You win the "I'm the most conservative contest," and I'm sure you'll enjoy the shiny button you show off to your friends.
I'm not voting for RP because while he might have interesting viewpoints, he is not a leader. A nice grandfather, maybe. But not a national leader.
Posted by: steve miller on May 31, 2007 03:52 PMDon't get me wrong, I agree with him on those issues. But the country doesn't. You're delusional if you think he would beat any of the Democrats.
And you really think Giuliani has no chance to win the general election? He is extremely popular among moderates, and even many northeastern liberals. He could actually win New York, even if Hillary is the Democratic candidate. He has the best chance at winning in 08 out of all the Republicans. But any Republican that actually wins the nomination has a good chance.
Well, I don't know who this Nadar is, but please point out where I said this administration is conservative. While you're at it, please point out where I said I was a fan of this administration.
Just because I'm able to read the things you guys are saying - and am able to perfectly match up those statements with the same things that have been peddled by the hysterical left for the last several years - doesn't make me a Bush apologist, my head in the sand or any of the other highly persuasive (/rolls eyes) arguments you're making.
See, here's the point: You're defending Saddam Hussein. You believe he should've been left alone so all the hornets we beat out of Afghanistan could've found safe harbor with a regime well-known for harboring terrorists and providing financial support. Pardon me if I think you're effed in the head for taking that position. Saddam was a long-time enemy of the U.S. As long as he was alive, he was a threat to this country.
Oooh, but Jim. We created Saddam. Another one of your 'persuasive' arguments. OK. Let's say I agree with another one of your leftist positions. If we 'created' him, then wouldn't it be our responsibility to deal with him. Is that in your personal responsibility packet from Ron Paul?
Point is, we should've taken out the clown in '91 when we had a chance. We should've taken him out during the 90s when it was official White House policy, but we didn't. But when somebody actually DOES do what should've been done long ago, you play the Pat Buchanan/Isolationist card. As if that's going to solve anything.
Like I've stated in the past, I dealt with you types in the mid-90s. You know, the ones who believe in jury nullification. Refuse to put zipcodes on your mail and other fun stuff designed to declare your 'independence'. Didn't have much respect for you then - don't have much for you now. You're simply the far right hooking up with the far left on the backside of the political spectrum.
And regarding the 'I'm more conservative that you' stuff? Snort. You have no clue. There are those reading, but never post who are having a good chuckle at your expense right now.
Posted by: jimg on May 31, 2007 04:29 PMThat tells me a lot about the Ron Paul voter demographic, I guess. (Not surprised.)
I have to laugh when I hear the bit about how the U.S. doesn't have any business in the area. This nation runs on oil and if tried to kick the habit tomorrow it would take us 20 years to ween ourselves of the problem. We have an interest in making sure that continues to flow as if it got cut off or became a blackmail point (as it surely would if a pure islamofascist state took hold.)
Before certain liberals decide to jump all over that point, recognize that the U.S. is a prime exporter of many, many things other nations depend on. If our government was toppled you can be damned sure that nations that depend on us for food, building materials, etc. would be all over us. In fact, if we ever got taken over by a government that decided to play games with wheat in the way OPEC plays with oil, chances are pretty damned good there would be another world war over that whole situation. (Anyone really want to argue that point?)
Let's save the fairytale that our watching over our own interest makes us a big bad bully. We are going to be in the middle east until we kick the habit. I'm looking for the political candidate that has a plan that takes us that direction in a positive manner (i.e not the Jimmy Carter/Al Gore manner of "lets go back to the stone age".) I'll follow any candidate that can move this nation to energy independence but isn't afraid to say we aren't going to get there overnight.
Posted by: johnny on May 31, 2007 04:40 PMSo you're saying we should be going around the world overthrowing governments and killing hundreds of thousands so you can drive that SUV.
If it never works then how do you explain the economic vitality of the two dozen+ countries around the world that have standards of living comparable to ours, while managing to accomplish that without the advantage of dollar hegemony? You are so uninformed it is laughable but not surprising that you wouldn't support Ron Paul. Why dont you just be honest and admit to being a mindless shill.
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on May 31, 2007 04:46 PMHaving said that: It is impossible to argue that our specific actions in the particular region - from our support of Israel to the "10 years of bombing Iraq" Paul mentioned - are NOT major factors contributing to recruitment of the terrorists. Yes, being a world policeman comes with a price tag.
Dr. Paul doesn't believe it's worth it.
I beg to differ. Indeed, fighting against totalitarian regimes like the Baathists in Iraq may be one of the rare cases when a libertarian should approve a massive "state intervention".
(Unless she also believes that somehow only people born in America are entitled to life and liberty).
Having said that too, I would still consider voting for Paul if the primaries are decided early or if the leader is particularly unappealing: His strict libertarian positions on most issues do deserve more attention, if not always unconditional support.
Reagan said that libertarianism was the 'soul of the Republican Party.' Ron Paul's candidacy makes it once again possible to return to a party that genuinely represents the philosophy of the Framers. Somebody pinch me...
Reagan said that libertarianism was the 'soul of the Republican Party.' Ron Paul's candidacy makes it once again possible to return to a party that genuinely represents the philosophy of the Framers. Somebody pinch me...
The Democrats know this, which is why they fight so hard for the D nomination. Whomever wins that is pres. in '09. The only thing that could change that would be the R's nominating an anti-war candidate. Ron Paul. He is the only one in the race who actually voted against the war! He would get to the left of Hillary and Obama on this issue, and "steal" their anti-war votes!!!
But I predict the R's will chose to fall on their swords over the principle of their failed Iraq policy. The result will be national socialized medicine, hgher taxes, more unemployment and bigger government.
But Ron Paul is by far the most fiscally conservative candidate the R's have. He would actually veto pork-laden budgets until they gave him a clean one! Imagine that, returning fiscal conservatism to the R's...
Ron Paul is the best Republican pres. candidate since Barry Goldwater.
But I'll be voting for the Libertarian candidate in any case.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 31, 2007 08:43 PMFirst, "pro-war" doesn't mean the same thing for every candidate. Certainly many people respect John McCain's position on the war, even if they disagree with him, and many wouldn't discount him merely because of that.
Second, there is simply no possible way that Ron Paul could even possibly, under any circumstances, win the general election, save one: if his opponent were Dennis Kucinich. That's Paul's only chance.
It cannot, it will not, happen. The ani-war crowd is filled with people that HATE your and Ron Paul's primary message, and you know that as well as anyone. You really think the anti-war protestors are going to vote for someone who wants to cut federal regulatory authorities and social programs and cut taxes, just because he opposed the war from the beginning and Hillary didn't? Really?
Really?
And as to most fiscally conservative "by far," it depends on how you define that subjective term, but John McCain (not that I am supporting him, he's just the best example on both the war and pork that comes to mind right now) not only has consistently opposed pork for his entire career in the Senate, but he would actually have a chance at working with the Senate to reduce pork, whereas Paul would merely antagonize the entire Congress and get his vetos overruled ... by both parties. So even if Paul is "more fiscally conservative," he would be less capable of actually reducing Congressional spending.
I like Ron Paul. I agree with him on a lot of issues. I love that he is in the debate, raising all of the issues he's raising (even the ones I disagree with him on). But he would be incapable of governing, because he would be a man without a party. We've seen that before (as early as our second President), and we know it doesn't work.
Ron Paul makes some of the same cases for the reactions against America and the West as does Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn which is weird, interesting, and heartening but rightfully challenging. In analysis he and they are not far off of the mark, but his prescriptions, as do theirs, fall back to an outdated state of mind and place. As valid as the criticisms are, who would draft and carry out responsive policies based on them? He is coming in from out on a limb and bringing a conversation and debate to the center that should have been there the whole time, but who is going to do the work? It's almost entirely academic unless I am missing something, does anyone know the answer to this? I am at the least glad he raises issues others are too intertwined in their own 'realities' to speak about and if the issues aren't present in the forefront of the 08 debates we will all lose something.
Posted by: Acid Brain on June 1, 2007 12:11 AMSecond, I never said we shouldn't import oil from countries willing to trade with us. I just didn't realize we had to invade Iraq to trade.
Third, we have vast supplies of oil in Alaska and the Gulf that we wouldn't have to be dependant on anybody for oil and it would do wonders for our economy to do so because we could be an exporter as well instead of just an importer.
You'll have to forgive me Johnny, I forget what arab country or arab countries we invaded before Iraq so we could import oil. for some wild cray reason, I just thought it was free trade back then with freindly arab countries.
Not sure what "voter demographic" you come from but somebody programmed you well if you think the only way to import oil is to be in Iraq. Last I checked, other "friendly" countries that we did import oil from and trade with don't anymore because we are in Iraq. According to you, they must not build houses or eat much because we don't export to them.
Johnny, for the record, I'm all about our interests for our country. I'm just a little confused that our leaders truly have our best interests in mind. I support the war in Afghanistan and even Iraq and where ever else our leadership tells us for the sake of freedom (shame on me). Tell me how you think our interests are being served in Iraq when this little spec is taking longer than all of WWII? If it was our intersts in mind then tell me why when the first hint of a big surge of insurgency presented itself did we not throw the kitchen sink at it with no restrictions on our troops on the ground. You want to be naive about it. No problem. Just think before you attack the "RP" supporters because they dig a little deeper than what you apparently don't have the capacity to do. RP supporters are not majority Democrats or liberals. They are conservatives tired of being sold out by their on party.
Care to talk about how our interests are being served when we can't even build a fence in our own back yard to protect our interests. Care to tell me how the Fed is going to manage this highly detailed "not amnesty" plan when they can't manage to build a fence.
Care to tell me where all these illegals are going to get $5,000.00 to start a legal process. How much is your large screen TV worth, your car, your personal belongings, your famillies safety. Thats where I would go first if I'm an illegal and the government doesn't even know I exist.
Care to comment on the conservative GOP administration's new plan on the climate strategy$$ Conservative...hmmmm.
"Climate Strategy" has kind of a liberal Gore like ring to it doesn't it Johnny.
I have stated many times above and on other posts that "isolationism" and "protectionism" are non-starters for me. You Ron Paulites say that Ron Paul is not for isolation of the US from the rest of the world even though he is against the US from being involved against the Islamofascist movement. I can't figure out, based on history and the current state of the world, how you can have such contradictory opinions. You Ron Paulites haven't figured out how to explain it in terms us 'one-liners' can understand, I guess.
Posted by: swatter on June 1, 2007 09:25 AMSince when does that classify Ron Paul. And do you really think there is a candidate out there that is going to stand for absolutely everything that you do?
Explain why, if Ron is an "isolationist", he welcomes free trade with other coutries and voted to go to war with Afghanistan. Sure does seem like he's against the Islamofascist movement to me when I look at his voting record. There was no Islamofascist movement in Iraq when we invaded. Invading Iraq was about WMD's and Sadam.
Take Ron Paul out of the equation and tell me if you think our foreign policy is effecting U.S. relationships with other countries in a negative way and how, besides the relationship it has with "radical muslim influenced countries that already hate us". Haven't you noticed that we spend a lot of time and money trying to buy friendships and security with little to no results.
Furthermore, Read post #74 and then please define the differance between a liberal democrat, a conservative republican and a libertarian, based on the events and actions of our present administration and government.
I'm not a Paulite or a Hilaryialite, or a Romnite. But it sure does seem to me that the current administration doesn't act very GOPish at all.
Explain protectionism. Thats a new one for me too. These one word classifications don't sum up anyone or anything. Its just a way for someone to not have to deal with an issue because they don't have a clue on how to address the issue. What makes you think that everything in life can be solved or classified with one liners. Why don't you, in a few sentances, explain what you stand for so I can understand how you and I differ. You calling someone a Paulite, an isolationist or protectionist doesn't solve anything because it doesn't at all apply to me.
Posted by: Brian on June 1, 2007 10:21 AMWhen I hear him speak to those two questions, I can better evaluate Ron Paul - he has no chance, but he does stick to the US Constitution, which makes him a rare one indeed :(
Posted by: KS on June 1, 2007 10:41 AMI also want to hear him address not only Islamofascism but enemy threat in general. Does he support a strong military? I think we are so keen on Islamofascism that we lose site of the threat that China is and will become. The Chinese aren't going gangbusters expanding their military force to dedicate it to NATO. Russia and soon Venezuela are going to become allied threats against us as well.
While the current administration not only imposes no tarriffs, but allows big business to build plants in China and elsewhere which has minimal to negative economic impact in our country.
I seriously doubt RP will win a nomination as well but letting him speak on budget issues, big government and the rest in the debates will at least make the ones with all the money that to have a chance to win address some of the issues.
As far as I'm concerned, if a legitimate hopeful wants my vote he will earn it. I won't vote for anybody who won't build a fence or drags his feet on building a fence in his own back yard and yet thinks I'm stupid enough to support an even more complex plan that will never have a chance to be managed properly and take years and billions to even put in place.
Posted by: Brian on June 1, 2007 11:17 AMI won't be back, but next time I still need to know how he is against Bush on this, but he wouldn't be afraid to go after the bad guys in another situation.
I don't see what situation that could arise to be severe enough to him to get the USA involved. I don't know if there ever could be because I think this is a serious mission we are on.
Posted by: swatter on June 1, 2007 01:17 PMRP does not say that we should sit back and take the punches terrorists - of any stripe - throw at us. He voted FOR invasion of Afghanistan, remember? He says that we should hold serious discussion about when war is actually in our best interest as a free nation, and declare war with an act of Congress, war with a finite end. you know, the way the Constitution says we should. War with a concrete enemy that can be defeated.
FTA: "After 9/11 could we really live and let-live with an unstable tyrant, with a track record of: invading his neighbors, supporting assorted terrorists, attempting to assassinate former Presidents, corrupting the UN Oil for Food program (gaming it for the benefit of his regime), refusing to comply with weapons inspectors after the unverified dismantling of his WMD programs, and blatantly defying UN resolution after UN resolution?"
We live and trade with Kim-Jong-Il, Hu Jintao and Musharraf. We lived with Stalin. We traded with Pol Pot and Mao.
"Preemptive war" means attacking a country that hasn't done anything yet. imagine a situation of "preemptive arrest", where you are arrested not for COMMITTING a crime, but for the chance that you MIGHT, someday commit one. You didn't rob a bank, but your income is very low, you own a gun, and your politics are suspicious, so we're arresting you. Remember that Hitler used the "pre-emptive strike" rationale too, when he attacked Poland. It is no more moral now than it was then.
And finally, PLEASE let's stay above the level of demonizing people because of the implications we can find, as outsiders, in their religious texts. The Bible (particularly the old testament) has just as many references to stoning people and meeting other religions with violence, but no-one wages a war against judeo-christian extremists. The truth is, most any religion can be used as a basis for killing non-believers, and there will always be a handful of people who think that that's the "true way". But we make the situation MUCH WORSE when we spend time, money and lives fomenting hatred against ourselves by meddling in other cultures.
Our presence in the Middle East did not CREATE Islamic Fundamentalism, any more than African-Americans created the KKK. But we gave them a very handy and visible target, didn't we? And we pissed off all their neighbors too, so it would be easy to recruit.
Posted by: Campbell on June 2, 2007 10:55 PM