billv
05-19-2007, 03:53 AM
I just posted the following essay in response to the typical "Blame America First" accusation against Dr. Paul. You guys can use it if you want in refuting similar accusations if you like.
Can I offer an analogy as to why what Congressman Paul said is not blaming America first. It's not anti-american. It's honest.
If I were to go out and have an affair with another man's wife and he got really mad and shot me for it, would it be fair to say that I definitely contributed to his actions. This by no means justifies his actions. They were morally wrong. But I did provoke the attack. The same could be said for 9/11. US policies in the Middle East for the last 50 years or more have contributed greatly to our enemies numbers. You need to understand that the perceptions of us over there are definitely negative partly because of their perception of our policies. Reguardless of whether our policies were well intentioned or morally correct or not, the policies have contributed to a negative perception. We need to be honest as a country and at least even examine the idea that we may have fomented hatred towards us by bad policy. I think that people have used the Blame America First in the past as an intellectual copout. It's one of those phrases that sounds good. God knows, only an un-American traitor could say we caused or were responsible for 9/11. But this isn't what Congressman Paul is saying at all. He's just saying that look, American policies have consequences. We need to be careful in acting abroad that those actions we take do not come back and haunt us in some way we will regret. I personally would have to take offense at being labeled a "Blame America Firster" because I am not. However, I do believe we should be prudent as a nation in acting internationally just as the Founding Fathers did. I believe that our government, in the past 60 years, has acted selfishly, without reguard to the people of the Middle East. When our government does that, it is expected that the people in the Middle East will get fed up. We'd feel the same way as well if the situation were reversed. A small, but pertinent example is when France was trying to interfere with us in going to war with Iraq. Remember how many Americans reacted with anger and renamed french fries "Freedom Fries' or boycotted or dumped french wine. If we act this way over something insignificant like that, imagine how the people of the Middle East react when we are over there nation building, supporting corrupt regimes, and the like. Their anger would be well justified. However, this justification for their anger does not extend, to me, morally into killing 3000 civilians in 9/11. Most Americans were unaware of our governments covert actions in the Middle East in the past. So to kill civilians as punishment for actions they had no control over or knowledge of is criminal. It is punishing people for crimes they did not commit. This is where I can say that Osama bin Laden is evil in taking so many innocent lives in the 9/11 attacks. I think Dr. Paul would agree with my assessment. I believe he would advocate for a strong but humble foreign policy. Please just think a bit about this. Even if you disagree, I will respect your conclusion.
I also think the GOP stance on the war is very foolish for a number of reasons. First, a global war on terror that may well outlast our lifetimes is too expensive to be funded by a country whose government is increasingly promoting the growth of a socialist state that will itself require massive amounts of resources to support. It will bankrupt our country, if we continue to fight the war in its current fashion. If our country is bankrupted, we honestly won't be able to afford an army of stone throwing monkeys, much less the military machine capable of projecting force around the planet.
Two, too much power will be usurped by the Executive Branch. It actually already has. Just yesterday, Congress passed a bill trying to take back its Constitutional authority to declare war after they so carelessly gave it away in 2001. The bill said Congress must approve of any attack on Iran: the constitutional position. Bush, today, promised to veto such legislation. He won't give back powers unconstitutionally granted to him. Second, the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security: we won World War I and II without the Patriot Act or Homeland Security, both which layer on more beaurocracy onto an already inefficient machine. If we can win against major world powers, much better organized and funded than the 9/11 hijackers, then why do we need it to fight a war against terrorists from third world countries. Also, even though the Administration has the new powers outlined in the Patriot Act, who is to say a new Administration will not abuse them. Would you trust Hillary Clinton with the powers outlined in the Patriot Act?
Three, trying to make Iraq is counterproductive for three reasons. I believe, that if Iraq becomes a democratic state of some form, we may see a similar situation to that which occured in Palestine. Remember when President Bush pushed for democratic elections in Palestine after Yasser Arafat died. The Palestineans voted in a terrorist majority to rule their territory. The administration promptly, and hypocritically, chastised the new government and threatened to pull any funding we give to the Palestineans unless Hamas renounces terrorism. I fully believe there is a good chance of this happening in Iraq. Second, by interfering in the Middle East on the scale of nation building, I'm sure we are actually creating more terrorists than we are killing. I know I would take up arms against any country that invaded the United States and tried to impose a more "beneficial", "superior" form of government no matter how benevolent the invaders claimed to be. Third, I highly doubt the Iraqis will ever establish a western style democracy that we are content with. They are Muslims and first and foremost, they have made their alleigance to Allah. Just as many Christians here put Christ first in their lives and live according to God's law, so Muslims live according to the will of Allah. I don't think imposing a western style democracy under such social conditions can succeed because western style democracies flourish under liberty and freedom. Islamic law is antithetical to our understanding of freedom and liberty.
A last point is that I don't believe the argument that we are over there so they fight us over there can be supported by logic. The terrorists are smart. If they are looking to defeat us militarily, they must bankrupt us. To bankrupt us would require a financial disruption whose magnitude would be greater than the economic shock of September 11th. With perhaps millions of potential Jihadists in the Middle East, could all of them be so tied up that another group of 20 could not come over here and cause great calamity. I submit that the terrorists are completely delighted to have us over there because it is much easier for them to target us. They beat the Russians in Afghanistan in the same way and the Russians were much more ruthless than we are. They can blend in among their people in the Middle East. They have supporters. It is much easier for them to fight us over there.
Fourth, how do we define when we win this war on terror? Is it when all terrorist activities stop? Is it when all terrorists have been brought to justice? If so, both goals are completely unatainable, even if the world became a ruthless, global, totalitarian state. There will always be those who wish to do us harm. We must learn how to defend ourselves here at home without bankrupting the country, without fomenting more ill will towards us, and without giving up our freedoms in the process.
I believe the best solution to terrorism is a strong military defense here at home, still able to project force around the world. In the meanwhile, we must work peacefully to spread western ideas in the Middle East. I believe this is the Christian way as well. For the apostles and early Christians did not resort to force to convert the Roman Empire, they used the simple truth, for truth is far more powerful than any military might. The truth that each man has the inalienable, God given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness spoke so loudly and profoundly that the American colonists defeated the worlds greatest superpower, the British Empire, on whose lands the sun was said to have never set.
Can I offer an analogy as to why what Congressman Paul said is not blaming America first. It's not anti-american. It's honest.
If I were to go out and have an affair with another man's wife and he got really mad and shot me for it, would it be fair to say that I definitely contributed to his actions. This by no means justifies his actions. They were morally wrong. But I did provoke the attack. The same could be said for 9/11. US policies in the Middle East for the last 50 years or more have contributed greatly to our enemies numbers. You need to understand that the perceptions of us over there are definitely negative partly because of their perception of our policies. Reguardless of whether our policies were well intentioned or morally correct or not, the policies have contributed to a negative perception. We need to be honest as a country and at least even examine the idea that we may have fomented hatred towards us by bad policy. I think that people have used the Blame America First in the past as an intellectual copout. It's one of those phrases that sounds good. God knows, only an un-American traitor could say we caused or were responsible for 9/11. But this isn't what Congressman Paul is saying at all. He's just saying that look, American policies have consequences. We need to be careful in acting abroad that those actions we take do not come back and haunt us in some way we will regret. I personally would have to take offense at being labeled a "Blame America Firster" because I am not. However, I do believe we should be prudent as a nation in acting internationally just as the Founding Fathers did. I believe that our government, in the past 60 years, has acted selfishly, without reguard to the people of the Middle East. When our government does that, it is expected that the people in the Middle East will get fed up. We'd feel the same way as well if the situation were reversed. A small, but pertinent example is when France was trying to interfere with us in going to war with Iraq. Remember how many Americans reacted with anger and renamed french fries "Freedom Fries' or boycotted or dumped french wine. If we act this way over something insignificant like that, imagine how the people of the Middle East react when we are over there nation building, supporting corrupt regimes, and the like. Their anger would be well justified. However, this justification for their anger does not extend, to me, morally into killing 3000 civilians in 9/11. Most Americans were unaware of our governments covert actions in the Middle East in the past. So to kill civilians as punishment for actions they had no control over or knowledge of is criminal. It is punishing people for crimes they did not commit. This is where I can say that Osama bin Laden is evil in taking so many innocent lives in the 9/11 attacks. I think Dr. Paul would agree with my assessment. I believe he would advocate for a strong but humble foreign policy. Please just think a bit about this. Even if you disagree, I will respect your conclusion.
I also think the GOP stance on the war is very foolish for a number of reasons. First, a global war on terror that may well outlast our lifetimes is too expensive to be funded by a country whose government is increasingly promoting the growth of a socialist state that will itself require massive amounts of resources to support. It will bankrupt our country, if we continue to fight the war in its current fashion. If our country is bankrupted, we honestly won't be able to afford an army of stone throwing monkeys, much less the military machine capable of projecting force around the planet.
Two, too much power will be usurped by the Executive Branch. It actually already has. Just yesterday, Congress passed a bill trying to take back its Constitutional authority to declare war after they so carelessly gave it away in 2001. The bill said Congress must approve of any attack on Iran: the constitutional position. Bush, today, promised to veto such legislation. He won't give back powers unconstitutionally granted to him. Second, the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security: we won World War I and II without the Patriot Act or Homeland Security, both which layer on more beaurocracy onto an already inefficient machine. If we can win against major world powers, much better organized and funded than the 9/11 hijackers, then why do we need it to fight a war against terrorists from third world countries. Also, even though the Administration has the new powers outlined in the Patriot Act, who is to say a new Administration will not abuse them. Would you trust Hillary Clinton with the powers outlined in the Patriot Act?
Three, trying to make Iraq is counterproductive for three reasons. I believe, that if Iraq becomes a democratic state of some form, we may see a similar situation to that which occured in Palestine. Remember when President Bush pushed for democratic elections in Palestine after Yasser Arafat died. The Palestineans voted in a terrorist majority to rule their territory. The administration promptly, and hypocritically, chastised the new government and threatened to pull any funding we give to the Palestineans unless Hamas renounces terrorism. I fully believe there is a good chance of this happening in Iraq. Second, by interfering in the Middle East on the scale of nation building, I'm sure we are actually creating more terrorists than we are killing. I know I would take up arms against any country that invaded the United States and tried to impose a more "beneficial", "superior" form of government no matter how benevolent the invaders claimed to be. Third, I highly doubt the Iraqis will ever establish a western style democracy that we are content with. They are Muslims and first and foremost, they have made their alleigance to Allah. Just as many Christians here put Christ first in their lives and live according to God's law, so Muslims live according to the will of Allah. I don't think imposing a western style democracy under such social conditions can succeed because western style democracies flourish under liberty and freedom. Islamic law is antithetical to our understanding of freedom and liberty.
A last point is that I don't believe the argument that we are over there so they fight us over there can be supported by logic. The terrorists are smart. If they are looking to defeat us militarily, they must bankrupt us. To bankrupt us would require a financial disruption whose magnitude would be greater than the economic shock of September 11th. With perhaps millions of potential Jihadists in the Middle East, could all of them be so tied up that another group of 20 could not come over here and cause great calamity. I submit that the terrorists are completely delighted to have us over there because it is much easier for them to target us. They beat the Russians in Afghanistan in the same way and the Russians were much more ruthless than we are. They can blend in among their people in the Middle East. They have supporters. It is much easier for them to fight us over there.
Fourth, how do we define when we win this war on terror? Is it when all terrorist activities stop? Is it when all terrorists have been brought to justice? If so, both goals are completely unatainable, even if the world became a ruthless, global, totalitarian state. There will always be those who wish to do us harm. We must learn how to defend ourselves here at home without bankrupting the country, without fomenting more ill will towards us, and without giving up our freedoms in the process.
I believe the best solution to terrorism is a strong military defense here at home, still able to project force around the world. In the meanwhile, we must work peacefully to spread western ideas in the Middle East. I believe this is the Christian way as well. For the apostles and early Christians did not resort to force to convert the Roman Empire, they used the simple truth, for truth is far more powerful than any military might. The truth that each man has the inalienable, God given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness spoke so loudly and profoundly that the American colonists defeated the worlds greatest superpower, the British Empire, on whose lands the sun was said to have never set.