Ron Paul’s Revisionist History

Alan W. Dowd writes on defense and security.

Pages: 1 2

Presidential candidate Ron Paul is an ardent defender of liberty and thoroughly consistent when it comes to individual freedom. That wins him lots of support among libertarians, but it doesn’t make him right on all the issues. In fact, the positions he has taken in recent debates on a range of issues related to defense and national security sound jarringly similar to the blame-America nonsense of the left-wing fringe. Here are just a few examples.

Asked in an August debate about Iran going nuclear, the congressman challenged us to put ourselves in Iran’s shoes: “Think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there.  The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there…Why wouldn’t it be natural that they might want a weapon? Internationally, they’d be given more respect.”

When former senator Rick Santorum pushed back, citing Iran’s 1979 assault on the U.S. embassy, Paul went even further, seemingly channeling some left-wing poli-sci professor: “We’ve been at war in Iran for a lot longer than ‘79. We started it in 1953 when we sent in a coup, installed the shah, and the reaction, the blowback came in 1979.  It’s been going on and on because we just plain don’t mind our own business. That’s our problem.”

There it is. It all comes back to us. We’re to blame for Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Iran’s radicalism.

Asked in a June debate about the Afghanistan mission, Paul said he would bring the troops “home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well. And I wouldn’t start a war in Libya. I’d quit bombing Yemen. And I’d quit bombing Pakistan…Our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. We have no purpose there. We should learn the lessons of history.”

History is full of lessons, of course. One lesson, as Paul suggests, is that foreign intervention is fraught with risks and can have unintended consequences for the intervening country. But another lesson of history is that there are unintended consequences and risks to isolation.

American presidents and the American people have rejected the siren song of isolation since World War II because of, well, World War II. A consensus emerged after the war that the world could do more harm to America if America remained uninvolved and uninterested, that America could do more good in the world as a leader than as a passive observer, and that engagement in the world benefited America.

To be sure, there have been mistakes and missteps, costs and consequences, to American engagement in the world. But by and large, engagement has served American interests.

The “bring the troops home” trope always sounds appealing. But we’ve put it into practice before, and the results are often disastrous: We brought the troops home in 1919, focused on ourselves, took care of America and assiduously tried to stay out of the world’s way.  Then Chamberlain gave us Munich; Hitler gave us another European war; and Japan gave us Pearl Harbor. We began bringing the troops home in 1945. Then Stalin gobbled up half of Europe, destabilized Turkey and Greece, and armed Kim Il-Sung in preparation for his invasion of South Korea.

By the way, the United States didn’t start the war in Libya. And whether or not the critics like it, America does have a purpose in the Middle East: fighting people, organizations and states that want to kill Americans. The targets of U.S. strikes in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia are people plotting to kill Americans in Detroit and Dallas and D.C.

It’s worth noting here that the notion that we lived in blissful, peaceful isolation before the 20th century—implicit in Paul’s foreign-policy vision—does not jibe with American history. Jefferson, after all, raised a fleet and sent it halfway around the world to wage war on America’s enemies—in the first decade of the 1800s. The Congressional Research Service lists more than 100 instances of U.S. military intervention overseas before the 20th century. “Between 1800 and 1934,” as Max Boot observes, “U.S. Marines staged 180 landings abroad.”

But back to Rep. Paul: When asked in the September 7 debate about privatization, Paul started back down the blame-America path. “Just remember, 9/11 came about because there was too much government. Government was more or less in charge. They told the pilots they couldn’t have guns, and they were told never to resist. They set up the stage for all this.”

It gets better—or worse.

Pages: 1 2

  • lnardozi

    Yes. Let's always remember that if America HAD entered the war when everyone was exhausted and their factories destroyed, we would have been the rulers of the world, HAD THAT BEEN WHAT WE DESIRED.
    Here in America, there's a little thing called freedom we've always been big on. Might want to read up on that.

    • sfdgfds

      unless you're black, or a woman, or gay, or poor.

      • lnardozi

        Yeah, I'd hate to be in Obama's shoes, or Pelosi's, or Barney Frank's.

        Got a point about the poor though. Ron Paul's the only man gonna get the government's foot off their necks.

      • StephenD

        Hey sfdgfds,
        I can't stand to read statements like yours that have nothing to back it up. What freedom do any of the folks you mention not have in America? They have the same as you and I. What is it? Is it taught in some sort of Left Lunatic School somewhere? Lately I hear similar idiots sputtering about "fighting for basic human rights" in America. What the hell does that mean? What rights are you fighting for? So I ask again, what freedoms that the rest of us enjoy do the folks you name not have? They have the right to pursue happiness…just like I do. They have the right to worship however they see fit. They can get rich or become poor. They can have a family or be alone. As corny as it may sound I love my country. IF you don’t (here is one more freedom for ya) you can leave. I am sick of people blasting America with false charges. Tell me one place on earth that these folks would fare better than right here. You can't…so shut up.

        • sfdgfds

          "Here in America, there's a little thing called freedom we've always been big on."
          "there's a little thing called freedom we've always been big on."
          "freedom we've always been big on."
          unless you're black, a woman, homosexual or poor.
          even today, how about Troy Davis?

          • Flipside

            Troy Davis’ execution was upheld by two blacks, a white woman, a Jew and a nerdy white guy.

        • Winsmith

          The distinction between free men and slaves is whether or not they are paid for their labor. The sole function of legal tender laws is to take labor without payment. There would be no wars if soldiers and suppliers had to be paid. The soldiers, suppliers and all others pretend they are paid with legal tender. "None are so hopelessly enslave as those who falsely believe they are free,"–Johann Wolfgang vonGoethe

    • fuzzywzhe

      Well, actually, we did sort of end up being the rulers of the world after WWII.

      We basically left nearly unscathed from that war, at least relative to Europe or Russia, which were ravaged

      We were the last country able to stay on a gold standard. As a result, Bretton Woods was created. Since dollar bills were directly convertible to gold FOR FOREIGNERS the US dollar became the world's reserve currency. After all, why would you want to have gold when you can have dollar bills that gained interest in a bank? Dollars were literally better than gold back then – at least until the French started demanding to exchange their dollars for gold, and forced Nixon to take the dollar off the gold standard.

      The US dollar became the world's reserve currency, and if you could reasonably say that did make us the rulers of the world – for a little while.

      Don't forget we reshaped Japan and German in our own image either afterward.

    • T138

      Actually if the US had stayed out of WW1 there probably would have never been a #2 which also led to the Iron Curtain etc. Those silly peaceful so called isolationist !

  • Jamal

    Even if your claims were 100% correct, we can’t afford to manage an empire. It’s costing trillions of dollars. And do you believe the lives lost overseas are worth it? Would you send your daughter/son to Afghanistan? Do you truly believe that they are dying for our freedoms? Would you walk alongside the troops in war? Is it surprising to you that the military supports ron paul more than they do Barack obama? Is it surprising that the former cia chief of the bin Laden unit said, “Ron Paul is exactly right”? Or how about that a former 4 star general in the army came out and said if there was no oil in the middle east we wouldn’t be there? Blowback is real… our presence and meddling in the middle east causes resentment and if you ignore that then perhaps you should sign up for the Marines and serve a couple tours and see if your perspective doesn’t change.

    • WildJew

      I posted the following on page 2:

      I would like to see Dr. Paul made to feel unwelcome in the Republican party as happened to Patrick Buchanan. Beyond his myopic foreign policy, I believe his philosophy poses a real threat to an otherwise healthy political movement. Conservatism is not libertarianism. Paul believes those who opposed confronting Nazism in the late nineteen thirties were non-interventionists; not isolationists. Dr. Paul believes those who who advocate destroying Iran's nuclear installations are
      "militant interventionists." Not so. Iran is threatening to annihilate a neighboring country. Iran is one of the world's preeminent state sponsors of terrorism. In no way does Iran "mind its own business." Does Paul believe Churchill's warnings about the Nazi menace was (as many in England believed at the time) "war-mongering" and "fear-mongering?" Conservatism is neither interventionist nor is it non-interventionist. It is historically-based realism.

      • jordan

        Nazi Germany was a world super power, Iran isn't. You can't compare the two. Iran can't annihilate anyone. Israel has 300 nukes, they are untouchable. Iran hasn't attacked anyone for decades. It was the same deal when North Korea got a nuke, they can't do anything with it. There is some historically-based realism for you.

        • WildJew

          It does not matter. Today, state sponsors of international terrorism like Saudi Arabia and Iran, use deadly proxies to wreak havoc in the world, against innocents. Al Qaeda is a Saudi proxy that dealt a harsh blow here in America on 9/11/2001. Paul's prescription is one whereby a nuclear weapon might be detonated in an American city. Paul's foreign policy is very dangerous.

          An Israeli prime minister put it this way (Pay close attention. This is important) : "There is no international terrorism without the support of sovereign states. International terrorism simply cannot be sustained for long without the regimes that aid and abet it. Terrorists are not suspended in midair. They train, arm and indoctrinate their killers within safe havens on territory provided by terrorist states. Often these regimes provide the terrorists with intelligence, money, and operational assistance, dispatching them to serve as deadly proxies to wage a hidden war against more powerful regimes."

          • Justin

            Go fear monger to fearful people. We don't want to hear any of your trashy lies. We would rather have freedom and profits and peace.

          • WildJew

            You don't want to hear the truth. Instead you follow your false prophet, Dr. Paul. Isaiah wrote about you and your false prophet:

            "For this is a rebellious people, false sons, sons who refuse to listen to instruction…..Who say you must not prophesy to us what is right (we don't want to hear any of your trashy lies)….Speak to us pleasant (smooth) words, Prophesy illusions…."

          • Justin

            What next, that I'm to bless Israel to be blessed, and if I curse Israel, I will be cursed? Sorry, I'm not a Christian; so the Bible can't be used to short-circuit my ability to think for myself on foreign policy.

            I think that Israeli PM was engaging in war mongering talk, and that's something the USA should not support in any way.

          • WildJew

            You got it. A nation that curses Israel will be cursed. You aren't a Christian and neither is your false prophet, Ron Paul, who sorta, kinda claims to be a Christian of sorts.

          • tripzero

            You can't be a false prophet if you never claim to be a prophet. FYI.

            The truth is, Iran is a 3rd world nation just like North Korea. I have yet to see N. Korea invade anyone or shoot their nukes at anyone. Is this not truth? Can you prove otherwise?

            Since you claim to be christian, can you tell me where christian doctrine justifies preemptive war? Can you tell me where christian doctrine promotes violence in any way? Sounds like you are promoting false Christianity to me.

          • WildJew

            First, N. Korea is not an Islamic state. To my knowledge, other than selling nuclear material, missiles, etc. to state sponsors of terrorism, N. Korea, unlike Iran is not a state sponsor of terrorism. Is it in the sense that N. Koreans are perpetrating acts of terrorism? Terror is part and parcel of the religion / ideology of Islam. I never claimed to be a Christian and yes according to my faith preemptive war can be justified as for example the 1967 Six Day war was justified preemption. The rabbis had a saying. "If someone is coming to kill you, kill him first."

            Neither Jesus or Moses were men of violence, unlike Muhammad. Jesus was a pacifist. Moses was not.

          • Ted

            You and Ron Paul do not stand for liberty, you stand for the advance of Islam. There is a reason why Christians are being slaughtered all over the world, and Jews and Hindus, Buddhists and all other faiths that stand in Islam's way.

            Paul is evil and an apologists for Islamic Imperialism. Iran will continue to intervene everywhere until they and their treasonous allies like Ron Paul are defeated!

        • pagegl

          Iran itself hasn't attacked anyone. But, their proxys have. They have exported terrorism through Hamas and other jihadist groups. Right now, they may not be able to do anything with the nukes they will produce, but I doubt that situation will last very long. And when they have the delivery systems in place I believe Ahmedinejad will attempt to keep his word to destroy Israel.

          • Marlow

            Well both the US and its proxy, Israel, or is it the other way around, have attacked others. The US has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents with nukes. Israel would like to and may yet. Ahmadinejad did not threaten to destroy Israel. You are no doubt referring to the "wipe Israel off the map" allegation. First, that was said by Ayatollah Khomenei and was/is a widely held view in Iran. Second, and most important, the quote is a mistranslation as in Farsi it actually refers to rezhim-e, that is the Israeli regime. There was no reference to "map". But you are not the first Zionist, or Zionist lapdog, to distort the truth for the sake of more Muslim bloodletting.

            In fact, Iran's U.N. Press Officer, M.A. Mohammadi, complained to the Washington Post in a June 2006 letter:

            "It is not amazing at all, the pick-and-choose approach of highlighting the misinterpreted remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in October and ignoring this month's remarks by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that 'We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state.'"

            However, acknowledging Iran has foresworn going to war doesn't suit your interests, does it – so just keep on with the big lie.

          • pagegl

            The nukes were used to end a war that had killed millions. If Truman had not authorized use of the nukes the US would have invaded Japan with the probable loss of substantially more, possibly ten times as many, Japanese than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the loss of tens of thousands of US personnel. Then again I guess you would think that is preferable.

            As far as the role in the US or Israel invading other countries I guess it doesn't matter to you that in the vast majority of cases that was in response to attacks on the US or Israel.

            Finally, you might want to ask the Iranian press officer what 'taqqiya' means. Iran is a greater threat to the Arabic countries near it than is Israel, as long as those Arabic countries near Israel refrain from attacking it. Do some research regarding the wonderful history of Shi'a versus Sunni Islam to get a decent understanding regarding the previous sentence.

            And cut the idiot ad hominem attacks. I am no one's lapdog, but I could make a case that you are probably a wonderful example of a dhimmi.

    • Chezwick_mac

      JAMAL: "Is it surprising that the former cia chief of the bin Laden unit said, "Ron Paul is exactly right"?"

      Did you know the "former CIA station chief on the Bin Ladin unit" is an anti-Semite who blames Israel's existence for Arab/Muslim ire?

      The only thing you got right is that we can't afford empire.

      • Harris

        Lol you are quoting Michael Scheuer the loser and Ron Paul follower. Anyone in their right mind knows that Ron Paul is a traitor that belongs in GITMO, as is the failure Scheuer.

  • derrick ricks

    spoken like a true big gov. national socialist. thanks for showing your true colors.

  • Smokey333

    The author has a very biased view of history.

    For starters, Yes we did overthrow the democratic government of Iran in 1953 and install a dictator that the people hate. We did it because they were going to nationalize the oil fields of Iran, of which were owned by Western companies.

    And yes that was what lead to the civil unrest against the US.

    That is not some kind of left-wing political science. That is directly from the CIA. You know, because maybe they try to learn from mistakes as to not make them in the future?

    WWII happened because of WWI. What the author blissfully ignores is why and how Hitler and such an extreme government came to power in a nation like Germany. And the answer to that is within the treaties that came after WWI. Of which combined with hard economic times and hyper-inflation fueled the support of what came after.

    The entire League of Nations was considered a failure as a result of WWII. Although it would come to be again in the form of the United Nations.

    But instead we are to pretend like Hitler just came out of the blue? As if the sancations and restrictions placed on the German people as a result of WWI had nothing to do with it?

    Come on.

    Furthermore, how could our policies before WWII be considered isolationist? We were lets see, oil embargo against Japan, and constantly supplying the British with supplies, not to mention treaties and other such things.

    And truth be told, the British saved themselves in the Battle of Britain. In other words, their defenses. Hitler had no plans of invading England, he was trying to bomb them into surrendering.

    Does the author even know what isolationism is?

    While on the topic of WWII, Ron Paul's answer was actually a bit of an answer in the direction or Reagan, considering they were in the Reagan Library. Apparently, this author wasn't quick enough to pick up on it. You know, Reagan and the Berlin Wall? Which btw, was setup to keep capital and people in? Reagan certainly didn't see walls as a sign of freedom, and it was the tearing down of a wall that symbolized American freedom during the 80's and was one of Reagans crowning moments as President. Walls work both ways, and Ron Paul just showed the foresight that we need as president. Someone who says – hey, these things work both ways, instead of all these status quo idiots saying "Derrr, We had no idea".

    As for all our commitments, we are paying tons of money for these things. It doesn't matter if it's welcome or otherwise.

    When it comes to take care of our problems, there is no doubt Ron Paul would do the right things. He would just do them differently – meaning by the constitution. In response to 9/11, Ron Paul tried to give the president the power to issue Letters of Reprisal and Marquee. Basically, this would allow the president to pay privateers to go and take out Bin Laden, and then come home. Or considering our modern military – sending Seal 6 Team in from the start, kicking his butt, and then coming home and asking – hey, anyone want to go next? And it would have been cheered the world over.

    But instead, no. It turns out to be nothing more than an excuse to go in and nation build a puppet. Ruining our reputation worldwide, and causing us to go bankrupt.

    • WildJew

      While I tend to agree with your view of the 1953 overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, to what extent this sparked the Iranian revolution, the U.S. embassy hostage crisis, etc., is open to debate. The Grand Ayatollah Khomeini established a regime based on pure Islam. He hated the Great Satan for many reasons that went well beyond American interventionism.

      WWII, it can be argued resulted from the failure to defeat Germany in the first world war as General Pershing wanted it. It was Wilson's failure. It was Wilson's desire to negotiate "peace" with an unbowed, undefeated Germany. FDR did not repeat Wilson's mistake. WWII was total war / unconditional surrender.

      I agree with your view of the League of Nations, the forrunner of the criminal United Nations. Both are bankrupt. Both are what, in my opinion, Washington warned America to stay clear of in his Farewell Address; "permanent alliances."

      • William

        Why do you liberals always say "i agree with your view of the 1953 overthrow…."

        It's not a VIEW, it's a FACT! This happened just like anything else you read about in history books AND the CIA warned us there would be consequences to pay. So it doesn't matter if you AGREE or not.

        • WildJew

          There are historians that say America's role in the coup was limited to non-existent. I have read them. I am a conservative. It is Dr. Paul who has a dangerous leftist worldview in the conduct of foreign policy. I was being generous when I wrote, "I agree with (his) view of 1953…" Because of your illiberal response to my generosity, I retract my previous statement.

          My point was, even if Smokey is right, even if America was knee-deep in the coup, it questionable that Iran should be given a perpetual pass (as Paul would have it) for her bad behavior. What does Iran's support for Hezbollah, Hamas, (possibly) al Qaeda, etc., have to do with the 1953 overthrow of Mosaddegh? What does Iran breathing threats to annihilate Israel have to do with Mosaddegh?

          I notice Paul-supporters are out in force. They give my comments "thumbs down." But they will not challenge my points.

          • Justin

            "There are historians that say America's role in the coup was limited to non-existent."

            There are historians that say the Holocaust never happened. Does that make the reality of the Holocaust questionable? Or are those historians questionable? History is a very loaded subject. People try to rewrite history all the time. I'll save you from your ignorance: the US had a role in the 1953 Iran coup, and it was not 'limited to non-existent.' You're welcome.

            "It is Dr. Paul who has a dangerous leftist worldview in the conduct of foreign policy."

            Peace isn't dangerous. The neocon foreign policy of endless war is what is dangerous. Or would you have us believe that war is peace?

            "My point was, even if Smokey is right, even if America was knee-deep in the coup, it questionable that Iran should be given a perpetual pass (as Paul would have it) for her bad behavior. What does Iran's support for Hezbollah, Hamas, (possibly) al Qaeda, etc., have to do with the 1953 overthrow of Mosaddegh? What does Iran breathing threats to annihilate Israel have to do with Mosaddegh?"

            It has nothing to do with Mosaddegh, or with giving them a "pass," because we are NOT (or at least shouldn't be) the policemen of the world. That's what Ron Paul believes.

            Hezbollah and Hamas? Hardly a threat to the USA. We shouldn't be Israel's attack dog in the Middle East — our leaders should be putting the USA and it's interests first, not Israel's interests first. And al Qaeda? We heard that yarn already re: Iraq, so spare us.

          • WildJew

            In the past, I have read enough about the 1953 nationalization of Iran's oil and removal of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh to not want to argue your point. America has done some foolish things, no question about it. Mine is a question. At what point will you and Dr. Paul say about Iranian mischief, enough is enough? Will you support Iranian mischeif indefinitely?

            I am not a neo-conservative (new conservative; I am a life-long conservative), nor do I support much of what neo-conservatives supported and support in our foreign policy. Let's stick to what I believe, not what you think I believe.

            You say "we are not the policemen of the world." I hear this expression a good deal. What does it mean? World empires (yes America is a world empire) do historically have a tendency to be the "policemen" of the world and that is not entirely bad so long as (this is important) the empire exercises its power for good and not for evil. True, American has not always exerted its power for good (often she has not) but there are times in our history where American power was used for good. The defeat of Nazism and militant / totalitarian fascism for example. If we cannot agree on that, I don't know on what we can agree.

            We should not be Israel's attack dog in the Middle East. Israel has not asked America to fight her wars. Israel can fight her own battles. Israelis are not asking the Americans to bomb Iran. Maybe "neo-cons" are but not the Israelis. Israel can take car of Iran. Israel did not ask the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq. Ron Paul (maybe Rand Paul) does not support Israel's moral right to self-defense. That is a fact.

          • Josh Butler

            Since when does Ron Paul not support Israel's right to self-defense? His quote when asked if the U.S. needs to protect Israel from Iran was that "Israel does a great job of defending itself" and "we need to get out of their way." I full-heartedly agree. Israel is very capable in war and they make excellent choices when it comes to power projection.

          • WildJew
      • Smokey333

        No, it's not up to debate. The Iranian revolution was about the Iranians taking back their country. And at the same time it was a backlash against the US for our involvement in propping up such a leader for oil.

        You're bit about Germany is completely void of history. I'm not even sure where to start, except to say you obviously have no clue of the hardships actually imposed on Germany as a result. Combined with an obviously lack of understanding what trench warfare was about, or why the invention of the tank followed and completely changed the warfare itself.

        • WildJew

          You could argue the Nazi revolution (Hitler called it a revolution) was about Germans taking back their country. I've read about trench warfare. I know why France was fearful of another war like the first world war. My bit about Germany is not void of history. Germany should have been defeated, crushed and humiliated in the first world war. Hardships? Give me a break you immoral low-life. There would have been no second world war had Germany been crushed. As far as I am concerned, considering what the Germans did to my people, I am shocked you have such sympathy for these Nazi animals; these savages. What does that make you? An immoral reprobate just like these savages you defend. You are disgusting. You have such love for animals and savages. You make me sick. The only innocent Germans were those who fought Hitler and Nazism. The only innocent Americans are those who fight low-lifes like Ron Paul, a man who sympathizes with Nazis and their spiritual progeny.

    • Pareto1

      I agree Smokey. The writer's account of history is weak at best. WWII came about from WWI and the infamous Versailles Treaty which essentially disarmed the German people and economically disenfranchised them. It was, as it turned out, a recipe for disaster, and it was the perfect storm for National Socialism which Hitler clearly capitalized on. The German people were crushed by that Treaty. Hitler tapped into that and we all know what happened after that. Nothing ever good has come out of meddling in other people's affairs. EVER. Reality check shows that none of that intervention has actually worked, and our Santorum junky hasn't even bothered to evaluate the price tag. But hey. Its all good, we'll just print more money to pay for the interventionism and depress the American people's livelihood's further through price inflation. We'll get the Fed to buy our government issued WAR Bonds (because nobody else will). Know that if this is the kind of foreign policy that continues to prevail in American politics, then I will remain neutral to short the US market. Its really that simple.

      • WildJew

        You live in a world of delusion and lies. You prefer lies over the truth. There are plenty of peoples and nations who have been defeated and crushed historically, that did not raise up or lift up a monster like Adolf Hitler to rule them. The truth that you will not accept is this. Woodrow Wilson stopped short of victory. He let the German army survive to fight another day, against the wise counsel of his general in the field, General Pershing. That is why we call Wilson's policies and those who embrace similar policies (Dr. Paul for example) "Wilsonian." Had Wilson crushed the German people and their army like FDR crushed them (like the U.S. crushed Imperial Japan), there would have been no Hitler. You are ill-informed. You live in delusion and denial.

        • Mhstahl

          Japan, last I checked, still has an Emperor.

          Woodrow Wilson was an ardent advocate for foreign interventionism, this is the definition of the term 'Wilsonian'-how, no matter what you think of him, can Paul's position be considered 'Wilsonian'? That assertion is beyond my comprehension.

          By the way-the entire concept of 'American Exceptional-ism' was devised, and the term coined by none other than Woodrow Wilson.

          You might want to brush up on the details of both the general condition of the German populace at the end of WWI, and the conditions of surrender imposed upon the German military. The people were literally starving. The military was disbanded but for a 100,000 man defensive force.

          German re-armament had less to do with Hitler, and more to do with General-oberst Otto von Seeckt. von Seeckt structured what was left of the army in such a way as to permit rapid re-mobilization. He did this by maintaining a high level of training, as well as a very lopsided proportion of officers and NCO's. This meant that all the army would need was men to carry rifles, and factories to build them.

          Germany has always been a strong population center, and was an early entrant to the industrial revolution.

          This was all done while Hitler was still hanging paper during the Wiemar Republic-and subject to Versailles inspections.

          Short of advocating outright genocide(which it actually seems like you are doing-correct me if I'm wrong), there is just no way that Pershing could have obliterated Germany anymore than was done by WWI.

          This of course assumes that, and this is a biiiig assumption, that the American population-remember a huge proportion of Americans are of German decent- would be willing to both accept the inhuman savagery that you advocate, AND be willing to accept the MASSIVE casualties that actually seriously attempting to invade Germany would have brought. Not to mention it would have taken years to build up the necessary force-remember, WWI was still a stalemate.

          Frankly, I would suspect that if the German high command would have thought that the Americans were seriously willing to attempt such an impossible attack, there would have been no surrender. Such a thing, with a rookie army and limited public support(they were jailing protesters and burning newspapers that opposed the war right here in America you know), could very easily have turned the tide in the war.

          At least they might have waited, and certainly attempted to foment dissent and un-rest in the US to see if she would withdraw from the war-or be overtaken by non-belligerent forces as they arranged to happen in Russia. It would have been a blunder right up there with Pickett and operation Barbarossa.

          Germany surrendered because of food embargo's, not a threat of military annihilation. The idea itself is a joke, that Pershing suggested it means that he was bolstering his reputation with bluster, when he knew he would never be allowed to undertake the operation.

          And, just for the record, FDR did not crush Germany. That would be Stalin and the Red Army. Go look up what actually happened-and the staggering losses the Russians sustained invading Germany, even after YEARS of constant bombing and food embargoes. The German army of 1919 was faaar stronger comparatively than the tattered Wehrmacht was in 1944. Largely because they tried the foolish adventure of attempting to invade a major power over a large distance.

          Of course, if Germany had won WWI or at least not surrendered, I doubt Hitler would have gotten any ground either. And, had the German high command not made the foolish decision to transport Lenin to Russia….. it is all a matter of perspective, but I do think when you call people delusional, and especially liars, you really should take the time to find out just what the h%^$ you are talking about.

          • WildJew

            You wrote: "And, just for the record, FDR did not crush Germany. That would be Stalin and the Red Army."

            Fine. I'm not going to argue the point. Russia had good reason to want revenge for all the atrocities Germans committed during their occupation. The allies might have done well to turn the entirety of Germany over the tender mercies of vengeful Russians. Nevertheless, hundreds of thousands (nearly one million) German civilians were incinerated by RAF / USAF terror-bombings. Many more were left homeless and destitute. Hitler did not visit one bombed out German city, though he was begged to do so. So much for his love of the German people.

            "Short of advocating outright genocide(which it actually seems like you are doing-correct me if I'm wrong), there is just no way that Pershing could have obliterated Germany anymore than was done by WWI."

            Nonsense. What idiocy!

    • Pareto1

      Will try this again. I agree with Smokey. Writer is uneducated on history. WWII came about from WWI and specifically the Versailles Treaty which essentially disarmed the German people and isolated them economically. It set up the stage for National Socialism and we all know what happened after that. You cannot think that intervention into other people's affairs won't have consequences. Moreover, the price tag shows that it is never FREE. So, we'll get the Fed to print up some money to pay for Alan Dowd's WAR bonds, and we can impoverish the American people through price inflation even further. Know this, if US foreign policy does not change, I will remain neutral to short the US market. Its that simple.

      • WildJew

        One more time. You live in a world of delusion and lies. You prefer lies over the truth. There are plenty of peoples who have been defeated and crushed historically, that did not raise up or lift up a monster like Adolf Hitler to rule them. The truth that you will not accept is this. Woodrow Wilson stopped short of victory. He let the German army survive to fight another day, against the better judgment of his general in the field; General Pershing. That is why we call Wilson's policies and those who embrace similar policies (Dr. Paul for example) "Wilsonian." Had Wilson crushed the German people and their army like FDR crushed them (like the U.S. crushed Imperial Japan), there would have been no Hitler. You are ill-informed. You live in delusion and denial.

      • Chris Nichols

        You and smokey are both delusional. After WWI the German army didn't care about the Treaty of Versailles, they felt the civilian population stabbed them in the back, that was their major bitch. Tell me, were they more humiliated after WWI, which actually allowed them to keep a standing army, which eventually led to their re-militarization, so much for that "humiliating" treaty of Versailles, or were they more humiliated after their total annihilation in WWII, where we haven't heard a peep out of them or Japan since?

  • Woody

    Every post WWII conflict that the author mentions, and WWII itself, was the result of a previous U.S. war. Every war we've ever fought has left us with another war to fight. The alternative to a non-interventionist policy is one of perpetual warfare, and I, a veteran, want no part of it. Does anyone find it interesting that Ron Paul's donations from military personnel is greater than that of all the other GOP candidates combined? Something to think about.

    • WildJew

      I don't see it that way. Why does prudent intervention mean perpetual warfare? WWII, it can be argued, resulted from the failure to defeat Germany in the first world war as General Pershing wanted it. It was Wilson's failure. It was Wilson's desire to negotiate a "peace" agreement with an unbowed, undefeated Germany. It was the 1919 Paris Peace conference and Wilson's 14 Points. FDR did not repeat Wilson's mistake. WWII was total war / unconditional surrender.

      • Kan-Wil-Sal

        Oh! So peace was the problem that started WW2, and your anser would be let’s annihilate them man, woman and child until they are completely destroyed. Okey dokey! Peaceful people like you scare me.

        • WildJew

          This is what you don't understand. There was NO peace following the first world war. Why are you mislead by people like Paul who talk "peace" but haven't a clue how peace is achieved? Do you think America should have stayed out of the second world war? If you were a world leader (the president of the United States) during the second world war, how would you have achieved victory?

          I see on Dr. Paul's website, he wrote: "Ronald Reagan had the courage to turn tail & run in (from) Lebanon." Did you know that was one of the justifications bin Laden used to attack the United States on 9/11. Osama bin Laden wrote, when the going gets tough, Americans turn tail & run. He cited Lebanon and Somalia.

          This is how you and your prophet believe peace with mass-murderers is achieved? By turning tail and running?

          • tripzero

            Maybe you also consider Jefferson a "false prophet"? After all, he was opposed to interventionism. But he was not known to "turn tail and run" and neither is Paul. Paul supported going after those responsible for 9/11. I think it's safe to assume that we could have got Osama without two costly wars that are bankrupting us. It didn't take us many forces to take him out once we found him.

          • Chris Mallory

            You are right there was no peace following WW1. There was a mass starvation of the German people by the UK and it's food embargo.
            Yes, the US should have stayed out of WW, especially the ETO. It wasn't our fight.
            In post after post your hatred and bigotry toward the German people is quite evident. It takes a truly bloodthirsty person to advocate genocide.

  • jakensie

    Try to avoid making logical fallacies when you criticize someone who called the terror attacks of 9/11 and the financial crisis. You're scum for thinking this way, believing your beliefs are more valid than information that Dr. Paul presents that you simply don't comprehend. Yeah, that's ad hominem.

    Isolationism is not non-interventionism. Read up on the difference, then go back and study history and tell us what you think. Countries don't bite the hand that feeds.

    • WildJew

      Can you please explain the difference. Was the America First Committee in the nineteen thirties isolationist or non-interventionist? How about Charles Lindbergh, isolationist or non-interventionist?

    • PhillipGaley

      "Countries don't bite the hand that feeds."? Primarily, "country" is correctly understood as referring to the geography. Your "Countries don't bite the hand that feeds." would better as: "Nations don't bite the hand that feeds.", showing compositions of peoples united in thought, through language.
      Correctly put, your concept can be successfully treated: And, yes—as considering Mexicans, or the Arabian nations, or those of S. America—just as piranha at feeding time, they do bite the hand that feeds; and partly, because those nations should be left to feed themselves, and partly, because of the backward looking ideology which possessed those nations, and also, because of those of our own number who sustain the market in drugs and sex, from, and in those nations.
      While, to suppose that, if I help some one, that one will be less likely to hurt me, may appear as of common sense, it is nonetheless problematic, conflicted, simplistic and misplaced logic; for, the reason why some one doesn't work against my interests, has to do with common goals, and ways of thinking—maybe contrast doling out money to Arab nations and to Israel, . . . I would say, ya need some book-larnin' there, Buddy, . . .

    • jacob

      So in other words, this kook is right on 9/11, right ??
      Or better yet, it was truly a conspiracy between the US govmt. and the Mossad
      RIGHT AGAIN ??

      And of course, the Iranian animals are entitled to have nuclear weapons, RIGHT ?
      Perhaps this kook would prefer, as many in this rotten world would except for
      the abject media, deprived of their whipping boy, for the IRANIAN kooks to nuke
      ISRAEL and get it over with ??

      Sorry but to me, PAUL shoul,d check his eyes in the mirror every morning for
      the whites of his eyes turning BROWN, as what he is full of keeps rising…..

      • James

        You're right, lets invade Iran. Lets expand this empire. lets beleive the people who say Iran is a threat because they were the same people who were bang on about Iraq. We don't have the money to attack iran. We are in two other pointless wars and you know thats true. Our country is in a financial crisis and you chicken hawks think we should enter a 3rd war? Just how outrages are you people? Israel has 300+ nukes, one of the best militaries in the world dont you think they can take care of iran themselves? The idea that the Iranians will fly a bunch of planes with nukes and destroy the US is just outrages.

        • WildJew

          No one of any credibility is recommending that we "invade" or occupy Iran. Why do you spread these untruths? If the Iranians want an all-out war, that would be up to Iran. Have you seen the maps? Do you know how small Israel is? One nuke could do Israel in. What is the matter with you? Once Iran goes nuclear, neighboring (Sunni Muslim) Arab states say they will go nuclear and develop nuclear weapons; Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. Iran reportedly has missiles capable of reaching Europe. Pakistan (another state sponsor of terrorism) is a nuclear state. How many Islamic nuclear states would you and your prophet (Dr. Paul) like to see in the Middle East, Asia and North Africa?

  • omahater

    Warfare has come a long way in ninety+ years, and I believe this renders your “bring the troops home” argument obsolete. It is trenches and mustard gas VS aircraft carriers and atom bombs. You honestly think a modern-day Hitler is waiting to come out of hiding as soon as the sound of US boots on the ground marches off into the distance?
    Bring them home, stop wasting my tax money. Why do you think Dr. Paul has such a strong military following? Now that is a commander in chief I would serve under.

    • Justin

      Right on

    • WildJew

      You don't think there are delusional military people? You are mistaken. Bring troops home where you can afford to bring them home. The United States has interests in the Middle East for the time being. Do you own a car? Do you use electricity?

      • Chris Mallory

        You do realize that we have plenty of oil in the Western Hemisphere to supply our gas needs. It is where we get the majority of it now. In the US most electricity is generated by coal or hydro, not oil Both are resources the US has in abundance. The only reason we are in the ME today is because agents of a hostile government have infiltrated America and hold the citizens of the US hostage using memories of 70 years ago.

  • DePriest

    When I read this kind of tripe, it makes me want to puke. It is so bad, it is hardly worth responding to.

    Please just stop it.

    You need to wise up and stop trying to spread your hate and warmongering. By the way, as you continue to try to send my kids off to fight in undeclared wars around the world, I wonder what branch of the service did you dodge while I was off fighting in Viet Nam?

    • WildJew

      Would you have called Winston Churchill a "warmonger" in the nineteen thirties because he warned the British of the Nazi menace? Because he call on the British to rearm?

      • Justin

        And what exactly is the new Nazi menace vying for world domination, in your worldview? Iran? Give me a break. Iran isn't a threat to anybody except its neighbors (read: not the USA).

        • WildJew

          Islam. What scholars and historians have your read on Islam post 9/11?

          • Justin

            I'm very well aware of all the fear/hate/war mongering garbage (the books, documentaries, Terry Jones, ad nauseam) that has proliferated post 9/11. That trash is only good for one thing, and that's for posterity to study, so they can learn how we were all conned into supporting your preferred (highly radical and dangerous) foreign policy agenda.

          • WildJew

            Gainesville pastor Terry Jones is a scholar and a historian on Islam? Good grief.

        • pagegl

          Lately, information has come out that Iran may have had some involvement in 9/11 (see… and read about info from the 9/11 commission report). So, yeah, Iran is, in some way, a threat to the USA. And will be even more of a threat when they have nukes. Does that mean we should invade it? No, but if we ever get intelligence that they are planning to use their nukes against us, what do you propose we do, wait for them to turn some USA city into nuclear glass?

    • Questions

      Notice how Ron Paul's people are stuffing the ballot boxes with plus signs onto responses posted by the like-minded. Rigging polls — it seems to come natural to the Paul people.

      • WildJew

        They aren't willing to engage in reasonable discussion. They present their points and / or attack those with whom they disagree, calling us liberals, etc. They will not respond to questions or to historic statements of fact. Paul supporters tried to take over some of our local Republican Executive Committees here in our state a few years back; before the 2008 election. Conservatives fought them. We are not libertarians. People can disagree over and to what extent a nation should engage or not engage in foreign wars. I know, I questioned some of Bush's foreign policy but there are things which we should all agree. Fighting Nazism for example. Fighting the global jihad. One Ron Paul activist told me he would vote for Obama because of his stated foreign policy.

        • ed s.

          there is no rigging here its just that Ron Paul's message is her popular and there are more people who like him than dislike him despite what the media says. Its just simple numbers. There are more who agree with him than agree with you. His supporters are just really politically active (god forbid that happens especially in a "republic”) by the way, I read several of you previous comments and you are essentially a criminal for wanting to continue our ways in our foreign policy. Most of our actions overseas are unconstitutional therefore illegal.

          • WildJew

            I notice you do not say my philosophy or world view is criminal, but I am essentially criminal. You did not read enough of my previous statements because if you had, you would have read that I disagreed with a good deal of former president G. W. Bush's foreign policy. That there are more people who like Dr. Paul than dislike him is truly frightening, if true.

          • pagegl

            How does expressing one's belief in how this country pursues its foreign interests make one a criminal? You purport to be a supporter of Ron Paul but you seem to have a poor understanding of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Dr. Paul's belief in them.

        • Justin

          Are you in or have you ever been in the military? Given your zest for a pro-war, pro-Israel foreign policy, I highly doubt it. Keep in mind that more servicemen support Paul than all the other GOP candidates combined.

          • WildJew

            Where did you get this idea that I have zest for a pro-war foreign policy. I want to prevent / avert war. I read history and learn the hard (painful) lessons from history. How about you? Do you study history? Who turned out to be more pro-war, Sir Neville Chamberlain with his "Peace in our Time" message, or Winston Churchill who tried to warn the England and the great powers of the Nazi menace? True, I am pro-Israel. How is being pro-Israel pro-war? I don't understand your rationale.

  • Eve in Texas

    That "isolation" thing is so old… you have to be desperate to keep using that one.
    You warmongers need to sign up for the military, sign your kids up and go fight.
    The rest of the country is SICK of it!

  • Ambrose

    With 13% of the republican primary vote (and growing!) you might find that the republican party changes shape while you are left behind with your well-intended yet poorly thought-out opinion.

    Your contrast of the consequences of intervention and non-intervention is the key decision point in your article.

    Intervention assumes that any conflict, military base, sanction or blockade is justified as long as "We're Spreading Democracy" (The ends justify the means)

    Non-intervention concedes that there are bad people in the world (there always will be) but the innocent civilians killed due to conflict, the costs of the military bases, the economic turmoil and famine caused by sanctions and blockades (that target the poorest of these already poor nations) only results in forces rallying against us.

    Ron Paul's position is moral, logical and is endorsed by the people closest to the problem (Armed Forces and Department of Defence research)

    The alternative position conflicts with the Christian Golden Rule and is endorsed by those seeking political endorsement based on a populist flag wavers of "american exceptionalism"

    • WildJew

      Ron Paul's position is immoral. Paul and his supporters should not have a policy-making role in the party of Lincoln. Lincoln was not an immoral man. He was a man of integrity. Little doubt Dr. Paul hates the founder of the Republican party. No doubt, Paul and his acolytes have written scathing articles attacking Lincoln. Am I right?

      According to one source, "Paul stated in the interview (with Tim Russert / Meet the Press), "Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war…. [President Abraham Lincoln] did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic," Paul said. "Every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach."

      In Dr. Paul's view Lincoln, not the south, was responsible for the Civil War.

    • pagegl

      What is wrong with American exceptionalism? It is based on the protection of liberty and freedom in the Constitution. How can you possibly claim to support Dr. Paul if you feel the Constitution is a problem?

  • Jose Mora

    As soon as I saw the term “isolationist” I knew that what followed was just another statist news media hit piece, with no substance.

    Is that all you’ve got?

    Is that your best shot?

    This actually shows that Dr. Paul is getting stronger every day.

    • dust

      Same here I saw the word isolationist and instantly thought this article was written by someone with stakes in the M.I.C…. Alan W. Dowd is the type of bullsh*tting bastard that we have to defend our views to glad to see others comments doing that. Now lets do it till the day he gets the nomination. I've supported most of Dr. Paul views since I first saw him in 06 it was disappointing when i saw him running in 08 because i knew what they would do to him.
      I never thought that he would have this much support now and it makes me excited to think that we aren't a bunch of misinterpreting media goonies and that self reliance is still a want to some.

  • Daniel

    Here's the Interventionist argument in a nutshell – "We need to act like a nicer version of Hitler in order to make sure another Hitler doesn't show up."

  • jebs24

    WWII ended in an atomic bombing; don’t you dare compare that paradigm event to the social platforms Dr Paul is facing today. Isationiam was blown away in memories of hiroshima and nagasaki. Under such forces were created a global climate of fear, forever changed, never can it be the same.

  • fazsha

    Hacks like Alan Dowd do not know the first thing about history. He thinks it always begins with "He hit me, and then I….."

    • pagegl

      Yeah, hit me and keep on hitting me and expect me to do nothing. At what point are we as a nation allowed to defend and protect ourselves and sovereignty?

  • Duda

    Rome failed for a reason. A huge government controlling the world isn't going to work either.

    We did a lot in World War II. We sent tons of cash and weapons to our friends and allies to fight back the axis. We were dragged into the war because we were doing that. We cut off Japan's Oil and we were supplying weapons to the British. So Hitler told Japan to attack us. Now, we are even much worse. We're supplying weapons to countries on BOTH SIDES and then entering in to pick a fight with the one that isn'ty as obedient as the other. We're trying to be the police in a crummy neighborhood. Someday, that police officer is going to get shot when he isn't looking… just like many of our troops. Our foreign policy is terrible! Let them sort it out. If things get really bad (world war? yeah right. world is at peace) then we can do something. Technology makes wars fast if it's real war and not an attempt to control a country.

    • Winsmith

      "The world is governed by far different personages than what is imagined by those not behind the scenes."–Benjamin Disraeli, former British Prime Minister "Those who issue and control money and credit determine the policies of government and hold the destiny of the people in the hollow of their hands."–Sir Reginal McKennah, President of the Midland 'Bank of England. Our 20th President, James A. Garfield
      was shot shortly after he said: "Whoever controls the volume of money and credit in any country (or world) is absolute master of all commerce and industry." Private foreign bankers spuriously known as the Federal Reserve told us on page 3 of Modern Money Mechanics that they control the volume of money. Please see:

  • fuzzywzhe

    Dear Alan W. Dowd.

    Isolationism is what we do to Iran now, what we do to Syria, and North Korea
    Non interventionism is what we do with China and Russia
    Interventionism is what we do with Iraq and Afghanistan

    If you don't know the difference between Isolationism – what we do with Iran NOW, and non interventionism then why are you being allowed to write an article on the subject?

    So tired of seeing this strawman argument brought up over and over and over again. If you have a serious complaint about one of Paul's policies, by all means, bring up one of his ACTUAL POLICIES.

    • Winsmith

      Ron Paul's policy is to maintain the fiction that our misleaders spend money. Two questions: How can they get money from us when the Fed said their system "works (us) only with credit?" WHY would they need money when all of us will risk our lives for more credit that is erroneoulsly called "money?" When credit exists only in our minds, wouldn't they have to control most minds to work all of us with weightless intangible credit? You will find that quote in Keeping Our Money (their credit) Healthy Library of Congress Catalog Number 60-14368 Revised Jan/ 1979

  • fuzzywzhe

    Dear Alan W. Dowd.

    You say:

    "There it is. It all comes back to us. We’re to blame for Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Iran’s radicalism."

    No, WE are not to blame. Our crappy government is to blame. Not "we", the Federal government is to blame. The Federal government that overthrew the Iranian DEMOCRACY in 1953 to secure cheaper access to oil in Operation Ajax.

    The Federal government is to blame, not "us".

    Eisenhower did this secretly, and Ajax was classified up until a Freedom of Information Act found the report in the late 1990s. The government had to overthrow the democracy in SECRET. The American populace isn't to blame, a corrupt government with a corrupt foreign policy is to blame.

    We need to change that corrupt government.

  • jtwilliams

    It's pathetic the way the author believes he can discredit Paul just by using the world 'liberal.' You're going to have to do a little better than that. Channeling the ignorance of the '53 coup as some kid of 'liberal professors' talking points?

    Everything the US has done in that region has had horrible unintended consequences- our political leaders should be ashamed if the ignorant Wilsonian types ever criticized US foreign policy. But for you imperialists- failing to bomb ANY COUNTRY is like Neville Chamberlain and Hitler, forget about the vast war machine and industrial base, we have to intervene before any country even thinks about their national defense.

    Why must you buy every bit of propaganda that comes out of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the Military-Industrial complex? Face it- Obama, Bush, Santorum, and Rick Perry would all have the exact same foreign policy, because they all lack the intellect and the courage to ever admit that the previous adventures have failed.

    Well in this time of fiscal crisis, what if you have a choice of paying for either your retired parents healthcare costs, or some insane social engineering experiment in the middle east? Because we're there- and its clear: you psychopaths would rather have hard fiscal austerity at home while operating a vast empire abroad. To hell with the American people, right?

    • Alexander Gofen

      There is a rational in the concerns of jtwilliams, but not exactly as he said.

      It is true, that for 80 years the external policy of the US has been erratic (to put it mildly), heavily influenced by the "progressive" anti-American elements, as Skousen wrote already in the 1950s (The Naked Communist).

      For 80 years the "progressive" policy makers (the State Department in the first place) deliberately diminished the global aspirations of the big enemies of freedom such as Soviets, Nazis, and now of islam. Since recognition of USSR in the 1930s and on, the entire US policy was essentially against American interests. It was mostly appeasement of the enemies and denial of the real jeopardy we were in.

      Nowadays this denial originates both from the leftist fellow travellers, and … from Mr. Paul

    • pagegl

      No, caving in to aggression and terrorism is being like Chamberlain. We need to learn from his mistakes. Radical Islam, with Iranian leadership as a prime component, has shown it will not back down; al Qaeda and the Iranian mullahs have all stated they are at war with the US. How far do they have to go before you think we are allowed to defend ourselves?

  • Brady

    The post is absurd simply because the OP doesn't differentiate between isolationism and non-interventionism. Ron Paul is the latter. Ron Paul would not have ignored Hitler's rise to power before WWII. There are critical differences between the threat posed by Germany then and by Iran now. For starters, the Third Reich had the CAPABILITY to crush Europe and they demonstrated it by invading sovereign countries. Congressman Paul would not have stood idly by. He would have went to the Congress to declare war the constitutional way. He is not 100% blaming us for their nuclear ambitions and radicalism. But honestly go read the history again. We overthrew their democratically-elected leader in 1953 to install a puppet, repressive Shah. We supported Saddam Hussein when Iraq invaded Iran during the 1st Gulf War. Do you honestly think these actions of ours has NOTHING to do with upsetting Iranians? Ron Paul is NOT saying we deserved to be attacked. He is saying that we need to understand what we did to chiefly piss them off. The kind of blind warmongering espoused in this post is dangerous and is thankfully diminishing.

  • littlehawk12

    Good stuff people.You all ripped Dowd a well deserved "new one."

    Keep up the great work!

  • numbnuts

    Your Fantasy and others like you is that the US is not "BANKRUPT" and can continue spending like a drunken sailor. It makes NO sense to patrol your neighborhood for free when you're freaking BANKRUPT!

  • proxywar

    You all know Ron Paul voted for the Afghanistan war, right? I have to agree with some of what the ron paul fan boys are saying here. Your article is sloppy. If you are going to attack ron paul's/ cia's world view on blow back you're going to have to do it on a arguement by argument basis. You can't just say it's wrong because you think it's wrong. You have to rationally show why what this man thinks is wrong. That means looking at the history again.
    This article is a much better example of how you should be writing articles:

    • wiliam

      Fan boys? You are implying that all Ron Paul's supporters are "fans"? We are supporters are we are more diverse than ANY other candidate.

      We have black, white, asian, democrat, republican, green, left, right, independent, liberterians, lawyers, scientists, school bus drivers, bakers, shakers, and candlestick makers….please do not lump all of us in the same ball of clay…..thats considered prejudice and its that sort of mentality that got us into these wars. Remember after 9/11?

      "yee haw" America rules! lets go keel all the muslims!"

      That's the mentality of people who think that everyone of a certain group are all the same.

  • Alexander Gofen

    OK. Assume (for a while), that whichever happens in the surrounding world is not of our business. Assume also that nobody outside the US wants us harm, as Mr. Paul and his cohorts believe. There exist no global aspirations of islam or "progressivism". We have no enemies so we can trade and empower whoever it happens. All have the right to be what they are.

    Then does America too have the right to be what it was since the foundation? Does Mr. Paul recognize the exclusive national identity of America, founded as the Judeo-Christian nation indivisible under God (Judeo-Christian God indeed)?

    No. Mr. Paul believes as though "religion" in the founding documents means everything including islam. As though the 1st Amendment legitimizes proselytizing of islam up to turning America into an islamic nation. As though the 9/11 victory mosque on the bones of 3000 victims (victims of American interventionism, mind you) is merely a matter of property rights.

    It appears that Mr. Paul also believes as though America (unlike all) must not enforce the borders, nor prevent illegal entrance of foreigners. It's OK if illegals take American jobs, exploit the benefits, never speak English and even voice their territorial claims.

    Mr. Paul celebrates the US Constitution in September. However does he protect the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic? Has he ever had anything to say about the most grotesque violation of the Constitution by the impostor and felon Obama/Soetoro? ?

    So much about caring of American values and preservation of its national identity by Mr. Paul.

    To be just, he is right on the money insisting on the gold standard.

    • william

      lol omg there are so many things wrong with your comment i just don't have the time to get to them all.

      But in a nutshell.,….

      1. The country was NOT founded under any sort of religious basis, thats why we have freedom to worship anyone we want or not worship at all.
      2. Islamists are not all terrorists you redneck, geez
      3. Dr. Paul is the ONLY candidate who says we should put as many troops along the border as it takes to secure it. PERIOD! Got it? Where do you get this crap??
      4. Yes Dr. Paul believes in strong national defense. He also voted FOR the war in Afghanistan to bring to justice those responsible for 9/11

      Willful ignorance is the problem with our country….try to not be a part of the problem mmm'k?

      • pagegl

        Read the writings of the creators of the Constitution before stating there was no sort of religious basis to the Constitution. Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Washington, and others all wrote of the influence of religion on the Constitution and government.

    • Alexander Gofen

      Thank you William for your points 1, 2 proving what I have written earlier. The foundling fathers would turn in the grave if they heard as though now America is "Anything-in-the-World nation"

      Now it is both the lefts and the RIGHTS (of Ron Paul ilk) who blatantly deny our national identity, who insist as though the 1st Amendment concerns also islam! As though it allows proselytizing islam and converting America into islamic nation. As though to confront islam is against American interests: to appease islam and submit to it is…

      We are in a very perilous situation indeed when the opposite wings of the political spectrum JOINED and turned into dhimmies or worse: the islamic collaborators.

      On point (3): the article shows that Mr. Paul IS NOT so clear on borders like William thinks (see "big fences" reasoning).

      As to point 4), in other times Mr. Paul claimed as though it is the right time to de-fund the US Military because all wars have already ended with the execution of OBL! (Islam is not at war against anybody, mind you!..)

      The only aggressor in the world (and a sucker of the US funds) is Israel you know – in the educated opinion of Mr. Paul…

  • littlehawk12

    @proxywar-Ron Paul voted to authorize military force to capture Osama bin Laden, the original intent of moving troops into Afghanistan. He said he wouldn't have voted if he had known what the Bush administration was planning on doing there. He doesn't think voting to authorize force against Al Qaeda was wrong, since he treats 9/11 as a criminal act against the US and they were the perpetrators. However, he definitely objects to our continued presence there.Endless war,nation building,etc,etc….

  • littlehawk12

    Worship who you want to Alex.The Constitution does not specify which religion one must or must not worshipYou are inserting your personal interpretation into the Constitution.What part of Freedom of Religion,do you not get?

    You are also assuming Dr.Paul would allow America to be over run by Islam.Like that would ever happen anyway.

    Your assumptions on where Dr.Paul stands on Borders and Immigration are also incorrect.

    And no.Paul,nor the campaign stands nothing to gain by being a birther.Except to make his self look like an idiot.

    Do some researchman!And stop buying into all the bunk spewed by the MSM.I'll even give you a start-

    • Alexander Gofen

      "The Constitution does not specify" also that you must walk on your two. Yet the foundling fathers would turn in the grave if they heard as though now America is "Anything-in-the-World nation"

      "Paul,nor the campaign stands nothing to gain by being a birther"

      Really?! And I naively expected that Mr. Paul mostly cares about the Constitution and America rather than about his campaign. Thank you for the clarification.

  • tentoesup

    Since when is not invading other countries considered isolationist? We surely have fallen down the rabbit hole!!!

  • Redmond

    In a very real way, we are living in a world shaped by Woodrow Wilson's decision to enter WW1. Make the world "safe for democracy" and ruin the 20th century. A victorious Germany in WW1 would not have descended in totalitarian socialism.

    Of course the one war that this author chooses to gloss over.

    The middle east as we know it today was shaped n the aftermath of ww1 – the ethnic communities divided, strongmen empowered, etc etc.

    100 years of blowback.

  • srmmedia

    The author of this article doesn't know the difference between isolationism and nonintervention. Go back to school lackey

  • James Tiscione

    This article remains devoid of constitutional merit. Not one word explaining the authority given by the constitution for foriegn entanglements and treaties. Millions of people are dead across the globe since WWII in the name of freedom and democracy. Viet Nam is a perfect example of how the American people were duped into believing that our foriegn policy to; save the world from communism was our moral obligation. History has proven that when a country expands it’s empire to a point of unsustainablity the citizens of that country become poor and loose their freedom from the heavy yoke of taxation and oppression. What this writer does not know about history…is a lot!

    • Alexander Gofen

      Mr. Tiscione,

      What about communism "progressivism" sitting right here in America since 1900s?

      Things happening far away spread and contaminate disregarding borders and continents. "Progressives" have had millions of fellow travelers, direct agents, and all money of the world, while the conservatives were yawning.

      Yes, for 80 years the external policy of the US has been erratic (to put it mildly), heavily influenced by the "progressive" anti-American elements, as Skousen wrote already in the 1950s.

      For 80 years the "progressive" policy makers (the State Department in the first place) deliberately diminished the global aspirations of the big enemies of freedom such as Soviets, Nazis, and now of islam. Since recognition of USSR in the 1930s and on, the entire US policy was essentially against American interests. It was mostly appeasement of the enemies and denial of the real jeopardy we were in.

      Nowadays this denial originates both from the leftist fellow travellers, and … from Mr. Paul

  • ed helmstetter

    when is this kind of reporting going to stop already? each of these anti-paul views has been rebuked and rebutted and proven incorrect over and over again for years!
    please try to keep up with the pace and maybe you can write something worth clicking on

  • UrbanII1095

    We are broke even if we wanted to continue are neocon ways common sense tells us it is folly! Neocon 101 we kill people great, people want to kill us they have to be mindless spawns of satan. nobody's buying it any more so close up shop!

  • AJ Weberman

    I first heard of Ron Paul in a Nazi newspaper called Spotlight. He was their favorite Congressman. Paul pretends to be a libertarian but has a secret Nazi agenda to destroy Israel by cutting off military aid. He couches this is a demand to cut off aid to all countries. He is an evil, dangerous man. If America listens to him the Taliban, Al-Qaeda will regroup and develop chemical, biological or radiological weapons and use them against Europe and America. This kind of ignorance can be catastrophic. He would like Iran get nukes as part of his plan to destroy Israel. The Samson option will kick in and the oil of the Middle-east will become contaminated with radioactivity. Oil will be $1,000 a barrel. You think there will be civil liberties? Then Ron Paul will blame the chaos and American economic collapse on the Jews and call for their mass murder. He is a wanna-be Hitler and a dangerous evil little man.

    • jacob beasley

      He wants to end bribery of all countries, not just israel. Guilt by association is a fallacy.

    • Pyrometman

      Why are you reading Nazi newsletters? Conspiracy theory much?

      I've heard this all before, none of it holds up.

      My friend, please get some counseling, you sound like you live in constant fear of boogeymen.

  • Robert

    Here is just a quick list of figures on the Right, both past and present, and in no particular order, who have shared Paul’s foreign policy views in some respect as described above: National Review Founder William F. Buckley; The Conservative Mind author Russell Kirk; Author, pundit and Senior Advisor to Ronald Reagan Patrick J. Buchanan; Journalist Robert Novak; Economist Milton Friedman; Economist Ludwig von Mises; Columnist George Will; Republican Congressman and 1996 GOP Vice Presidential Nominee Jack Kemp; Americans for Tax Reform Founder Grover Norquist; Direct-Mail Pioneer Richard Vigurie; Human Events co-founder Felix Morley; Human Events co-founder Frank Chodorov; Regnery Publishing founder Henry Regnery; Eagle Forum Founder Phyllis Schlafly; Social conservative activist and commentator Paul Weyrich; Ideas Have Consequences author and National Review contributor Richard Weaver; Sociologist and National Review contributor Robert Nisbet; The Road to Serfdom author F.A. Hayek; Senator Robert Taft; Former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough; FOX News Judge Andrew Napolitano; Daily Caller Founder Tucker Carlson; Novelist Tom Clancy; Retired General Norman Schwarzkopf; Veteran and author Andrew Bacevich… –

  • WildJew

    I would like to see Dr. Paul made to feel unwelcome in the Republican party as happened to Patrick Buchanan. Beyond his myopic foreign policy, I believe his philosophy poses a real threat to an otherwise healthy political movement. Conservatism is not libertarianism. Paul believes those who opposed confronting Nazism in the late nineteen thirties were non-interventionists; not isolationists. Dr. Paul believes those who who advocate destroying Iran's nuclear installations are " militant interventionists." Not so. Iran is threatening to annihilate a neighboring country. Iran is one of the world's preeminent state sponsors of terrorism. In no way does Iran "mind its own business." Does Paul believe Churchill's warnings about the Nazi menace was (as many in England believed at the time) "war-mongering" and "fear-mongering?" Conservatism is neither interventionist nor is it non-interventionist. It is morally and historically-based realism.

  • joe

    I'd bet this author and former senator Rick Santorum never spent a day in the US Military? These men strike me as being "chicken hawks" and the "pee-in-your-pants" type of Conservatives.

  • mrbean

    I’ve had enough of Ron Paul. Anyone who blames America for the 9/11 attacks is obvious a crackpot. Crackpots from the right or the left are a danger to the founding principles of the republic. Whether it is a leftist blocking American military bases or militia types blowing up buildings, there is a common thread of anti-Americanism that unites them and that is what Ron Paul has tapped into. Ron Paul is a crackpot, a conspiracy nut and a public menace. His crank views of the economy have a lot of Republicans snookered enough to ignore the fact that he is an anti-Semite and an "America-hater” fundamentally at odds with America's role in the world as the guardian of freedom.

    • jacob beasley

      When you resort to ad hominum you undermine your own arguments. Use your brain; either come up with a real argument or admit rom paul is right.

      • WildJew

        According to Wikipedia (albeit not always reliable), "The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue." Crackpot I think is a legitimate descriptive, isn't it? Anyone who posits that America had it coming or got what she deserved on 9/11/2001 is a crackpot. No?

    • Michael

      Huh? "America's role in the world as the guardian of freedom," what planet are you from? This kind of thinking is exactly what is wrong with what's happened to America. It's like a bad science fiction movie.

      I'll support Ron Paul all the way, in every way I can. You can't stop the truth.

  • jacob beasley

    Fact: we already entered ww2 prior to pearl harbor when we selectively traded with one side of the war but not the other. We were just bating Japan to attack us. And when they did, we pretended like it was not expected and attacked back. Lets get our history straight… ww2 happened because we did not have free trade with other countries.

  • bstratford

    I think people misinterpret Paul's position on war. The fact of the matter is all of our current "wars" are not legal under the constitution. The president does not have the right to deploy massive troops to fight foreign countries unless congress declares war. Paul has said if we decide to go to war then debate it in congress, have them declare war, go win the war and come home. All this half effort stuff like Vietnam and the first desert storm are where we get in trouble. Those are military engagements undertaken contrary to the laws governing how the US can go to war. Also, there is a difference between isolationism (meaning we don't get involved with or care about what others are doing) and having a foreign policy that does not involve foreign aid and troops (except when war is declared). We can be involved in the international community and have treaties and work with other countries without acting like either a rich uncle with deep pockets or the police for the world. A sound foreign policy is one that is sustainable and protects America's interests. The current policy meets neither criteria.

  • George Washington

    What a terrible article author. Shame on you. How embarrassing it must be to use words in the title of your article that you do not even know the meaning of.

    Ron Paul is the man for 2012! He CAN fix America's problems because he understands them better than any politician running. He also has the track record to prove he will do as he says.

    Ron Paul 2012

  • Dan

    Yes, Iran was a thriving republic and we instigated a coup d'état to put in place a tyranny of evil. No, we're not responsible for the blow back of the radicalism that brewed. I apologize in shadow of your wisdom but you're dreaming or out of your mind. Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi was a saint in your mind but history regards him as equal to or worse than Saddam Hussein. idiot

  • Eddie

    Trite typical war mongering. We have military personal all throughout the world, in places where there is no threat whatsoever. Many of these bases are "token" bases, yet cost millions to run. Why the hell are we in these countries DECADES after wars have ended? DECADES after peace has been established? We cherry pick and feign to want to spread democracy by occupying certain countries and turn a blind eye to others. It's all a joke and so is the author of this hit peace.

  • Eddie

    Trite typical war mongering. We have military personal all throughout the world, in places where there is no threat whatsoever. Many of these bases are "token" bases, yet cost millions to run. Why the hell are we in these countries DECADES after wars have ended? DECADES after peace has been established? We cherry pick and feign to want to spread democracy by occupying certain countries and turn a blind eye to the human rights atrocities of others. It's all a joke and so is the author of this hit peace.

  • jay c

    Non-interventionist does not equal isolationist.

    Your ignorance breeds our contempt.

    Then again, you’re only ignorant if you don’t know that what you are saying is wrong.

  • marvincooley

    Only in a land of free speech could such yellow journalism exist. Lies and half truths are meant to sway weak minds because thinking people see through the pettifoggery.
    “But by and large, engagement has served American interests” not one example of how that has come about. There are many over whelming examples of failed engagements. Example Iraq and and our support of Saddam Hussein when he did what the government policy wanted and later he had to be taken out. The Taliban had a contract with the government for the oil pipeline in Afghanistan until the U.S. government breached the agreement and started a war.
    “In truth, the U.S. occupies no countries.” This is a false statement. The Kingdom of Hawaii has filled suit to end the U.S. occupation of the islands. The people in Afghanistan would not all agree on the “invitation” because many do not recognize the U.S. puppet government.

  • marvincooley

    Busy bodies like Alan W. Dowd and the U.S. government want to know what everybody on the planet is doing at all times because they live in a world of fear. Thomas Jefferson said it best “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny” Dowd is part of that tyranny because he fears the government.
    Here is Ron Paul’s quote on the 911 distortion “"We should always be cautious about the unintended consequences of our policy … that it could come back to haunt us," he said. "People want to twist it and say because I'm critical I blame America. And they're not fair … because I blame its policies."

  • Jared

    Alan W. Dowd, you are a part of the Status Quo machine. This article is designed from the ground up, to re-enforce the ideas of the Status Quo. A quick click on the writers name takes me to other articles you have written, and all of them appear to be super status quo construction material to me. Way to be a change maker Alan. Way to think outside the box. A Really, nice piece of objective journalism. It's good to know us Americans are safe at home with all the good investigate work you do, to enlighten us and protect us from our own bad decisions to vote for Ron Paul. Gosh, if it weren't for you, I would probably make the mistake of thinking Dr Paul is right?

    Maybe Dr Paul isn't right though? Maybe we should bomb more countries and see if they mind? Maybe we should go ask Israel if there are any more enemies she'd like us to Snuff out for her? Maybe we should send a task force of false flag opperatives to plant some nuclear devices in Iran, so we have an excuse to go exterminate anther Muslim population?

    I would bet we could get away with something like that and NOT get any ill will from the rest of the Muslim world, don't you??

    Ok, enough with the sarcasm.. You are an ass, the likes of which this country has too many. We are the land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE! NOT the land of the "heavily secured and not really free" and the home of the SO AFRAID WE HAVE TO STRIKE FIRST!

    There are no armies that can stand toe to toe to ours. There are no defense systems as advanced as ours. There are no navy's to challenge ours, and unless we piss off the rest of the world at once (which we are doing a great job of today) we have nothing to fear if we mind our own damn business!

    ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. And our actions as a Christian Nation, should reflect the most simple of those values, the Golden Rule. When this Nation begins to do unto ALL others as it would have done unto itself, we will be acting in accordance with our countries faith, and a simple rule people of all faiths can adhere to. Until then, you are just braeding FEAR in the land of the free and the home of the Brave Alan W Dowd.

  • Infidel 4 Ever

    MORON Paul

    • marvincooley

      I have found in my few years of experience that when someone vehemently accuses another of some misdeed or spews some slander, they more than likely, are guilty of the accusation or are describing themselves.

  • staterunradio

    Ron Paul is the GOP frontrunner. Face it. Everybody knows where he stands, and according the polls they agree with him.

  • P.R. McKelvey III

    Seems that Dowd needs to go back to ENG 101 and learn how to construct a sound argument supported with empiricism. Even the weak minded are getting wise to this kind of fallacious slander, sloppily compiled with cherry picked "history." This is nothing short of a pathetic and shameful attempt to slap a demagogue label on Paul.

    So go ahead and throw out your little bits of selective history. Real historians and logicians are among the patriotic, and are on the lookout for this kind of poor free punditry.

  • Flipside

    This article is Hudson Institute crap. All the neocons are hiding in these real estate swindle/ intelligence agency/ PR firms. Ron Paul is a left winger and bad foreign policy strategist because he referred to the CIA coup against the Shah, a fact of history? Be damned, Alan Dowd and everyone like you. Also people should read this article describing what the goals of these shadow think tanks are: