PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Sensibly Defended.




Simon Zur
08-16-2011, 02:04 PM
In the Ames Iowa Straw Poll Debate last thursday, Ron Paul was challenged by Rick Santorum on his foreign policy position, in particular about his position on Iran. Ron Paul countered with an analogy from the Cold War. He pointed out the absurdity of using fear tactics on the American People over the possibility of Iran obtaining a nucleur weapon as a justification for the war that Neo-cons and Neo-libs are now planning. He challenged his listeners to consider the size of the threat the Soviets posed in comparison to Iran who currently has no ability to deliver a nucleur attack on the US, even if they do develop a weapon.

Since then, the hindsight argumentation from the major media and talk radio against Ron Paul's position centers around three points.

1. They argue that it is a bad analogy because we do not have the mutually assured destruction (MAD) safety net with Iran that we had with the Soviet's.
2. They argue by posing the question, "What if Iran were to put nucleur tipped missles in Venezuela?"
3. They argue that the Iranian situation is different because they are religous fanatics, and madmen who will use a nucleur weapon, if they get one, against Israel or the US.

All of these arguments are false political chicanery to descredit Ron Paul whose performance in recent polls suggests that he has more of a chance to win the Republican nomination than they want to give him credit. Hence the recent media blockout. If one applies just a little reason to these status quo arguments, one finds them baseless and detached from reality.

We do not have the guarantee of Mutually Assured Destruction with Iran that we had with the Soviets.
Since Iran does not have the ability to deliver a nucleur weapon to the shores of the US, the threat of them getting a weapon is a regional threat. Israel has nucleur weapons. If Iran used a nucleur weapon against Israel, Israel would certainly retaliate. That is Mutually Assured Destruction.

If Iran were to develop ICBM's and could deliver a weapon to the US, are we or they to expect that the US would not retaliate by destroying Iran? Which brings me to the second false argument of the status quo supporters.

What if Iran puts nucleur missles in Venezuela?
Then they would be a direct threat to the US, not just to Israel. President Ron Paul or any other would have to deal with this situation, just like we had to deal with the Soviet's and Cuban's in the early 60's.
Furthermore, we would still have the leverage of Mutually Assured Destruction. And this in a way that is even more to our advantage then during the Cold War because they will not, even if they have few weapons, have the ability to destroy the US, while we can certainly destroy Iran many times over.

The Situation with Iran is Different with the Soviet's because They are Religous Fanatics, Madmen.
Here they really make a logical mistake. On the one hand, they argue that Iran and other radical Islaamist's want to rule the world through an Islaamic Caliphate. On the other hand, we are told that they are willing to destroy themselves and their third holiest Muslim site in Jerusalem in order to rule the world. In whose mind does this really make sense?



Further Evidence of the Status Quo Foreign Policy's Detachment from Reality.
So, if Iran is such a threat to the region and to the US, why are we not going to attack Pakistan? Pakistan is full of Radical Muslims who want to destroy the US an Israel. They already have nucleur weapons and their government is unstable. Those weapons could fall into the hands of the terrorists, couldn't they? Notice the inconsistency.

In ten years we have not been able to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, how will we beat the Persians in Iran?

We have lost thousands of American lives and untold lives among the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition we have spent trillions of dollars on these wars already. How much more will it take in lives and money to defeat Iran and maintain stability throughout the Middle East?

In conclusion, is it reality to believe that America can afford these wars or another with Iran, given our current fiscal situation? Is it reality that we can expect, without sufficient resources, to defeat not just a few countries, but an entire worldwide religion with more than 1 billion adherents? Are we really to accept the war mongering political propoganda that says that the Iranians and others are willing to destroy themselves as countries and peoples in order to somehow gain world dominance, or should we look at our own think tanks who have publicly proclaimed the use of multiple and concurrent wars in the Middle East as a means to secure American dominance in the 21st century? Look it up, its called the Project for A New American Century.

Ron Paul believes that this sort of status quo thinking is detached from the reality of the relative conditions in the world. He believes that through our interventionist policies, the US is suffering from the "blowback" of these interventions over the last several decades. Is he wrong? Is the status quo, that we cannot afford and which ignores the Constitution as well as the sovereignty of other nations, really correct and sane?

Should we as a country and a people continue to support the status quo interventionism despite the harm it is causing in our economy and in our hearts, or should we listen to the cooler heads who preach peace and prosperity through mutual respect of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Ron Paul 2012
Join the Debate: http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/44011/28207105/Ron_Pauls_or_Staus_Quo_Foreign_Policy:__Which_is_R eally_Crazy