Ron Paul’s Middle East Delusion


In an op-ed at Counterpunch.org last week, former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul addressed what he calls “the tragic-comedy of US foreign policy” and explained “How to End the Gaza Tragedy.” The real tragicomedy is that Paul continues to cling to his dangerously naïve foreign policy perspective.

In his article, Paul asserts his usual stance that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will never end as long as the United States continues to support Israel. He quotes journalist Glenn Greenwald, who wrote that “For years now, US financial, military and diplomatic support of Israel has been the central enabling force driving this endless conflict.” Like Greenwald, Paul doesn’t hold Palestinian terrorists accountable for initiating and perpetuating the violence; he only paints a picture of American and Israeli collusion to oppress Palestinians in what Paul calls the “Gaza tragedy.”

Of the most recent Middle East conflagration, Paul writes in his op-ed that “it feels like 2009 all over again, which is the last time this kind of violence broke out in Gaza.” Note the convenient passivity of that phrasing, “violence broke out,” which enables Paul to avoid placing responsibility where it belongs. That violence wasn’t a nonhuman natural phenomenon like a thunderstorm; it didn’t just spontaneously “break out.” That violence, like the more recent one, was the result of relentless rocket attacks and terrorist activity by Palestinians, which necessitated a too-patient Israel to move in and put a stop to it. But that doesn’t fit Paul’s anti-Israel narrative.

“At that time,” he continues, meaning 2009, “over 1,400 Palestinians were killed, of which just 235 were combatants.” That latter number is grossly off-base. The Israel Defense Force’s scrupulous official accounting identifies 709 combatants out of 1004 fatalities whose status is known (another 295 were civilians and 162 were unclassified). Paul is also being disingenuous about those figures; he neglected to explain not only that Israel went to the most extraordinary lengths imaginable to avoid civilian casualties, but also that Hamas intentionally puts their civilians in harm’s way, to give ammunition for people like Paul to smear Israel.

When Obama defended Israel’s actions this time around by saying, “No country on Earth… would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders,” Paul found it ironic: “Considering that this president rains down missiles on Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and numerous other countries on a daily basis, the statement was so hypocritical that it didn’t pass the laugh test.” Paul feels that our “one-sided,” foreign policy hypocrisy “actually results in more loss of life and of security on both sides”:

Continuing to rain down missiles on so many increasingly resentful nations, the US is undermining rather than furthering its security. We are on a collision course with much of the rest of the world if we do not right our foreign policy.

Actually, the reasons we are on a collision course with “much of the rest of the world” are that, under the Obama administration, the United States has spent itself into economic ruin (a domestic topic on which Paul has more sensible opinions), abrogated its role as the world’s sole remaining superpower, facilitated the surge of our Islamic fundamentalist enemies, and alienated our allies like Israel.

Ron Paul’s foreign policy solutions appeal to those Blame America First (and Last) Chomsky devotees who believe that if only America would end its jackbooted imperialist militarism, peace on earth and good will toward men would sweep the globe faster than Santa’s reindeer. That’s not only a perverse take on America’s international role historically, it’s also wildly unrealistic.

It takes a stunning degree of self-delusion to believe that the Middle East conflict would begin to be resolved if only we would stop provoking the Muslim world and supporting our closest ally. That shows a profound lack of understanding of the enemy we face in Islamic fundamentalism. In the world of Ron Paul’s head, the way to get an enemy like, say, the megalomaniacal Iranian regime to drop its dream of world domination and its oft-stated aim of destroying the Great Satan America and the Little Satan Israel is to simply offer them friendship. Let’s end our Middle East interventionism, Paul urges, “replacing it with friendship and even-handedness.”

In the real world, however, treating everyone the same doesn’t mean you lose enemies – it means you lose allies. Simply put, foreign policy cannot be based on treating everyone the same because, contrary to Paulian fantasy, not all countries are willing to join hands and “sing in perfect harmony” together like a Coke commercial. Some countries are hell-bent on erasing others from the map, and treating both sides the same means you tacitly support the former’s genocidal aim against the latter.

Paul apparently feels that America should keep its nose out of other countries’ business. But if American power is not wielded where it is needed – and that includes our own military power and military support to our allies – then you leave a vacuum that will be filled by evil and ruthless forces who have no qualms about wielding their own power. And one day you will have to face the consequences of having abandoned your allies and empowered your enemies by what Mark Steyn calls “sheer stupid half-witted parochialism.” This is the reality of Paul’s foreign policy naiveté.

Paul’s supporters claim he’s not anti-Israel; he wants to end foreign aid to everyone, including our enemies. Defunding our enemies is a great idea which I fully support. Let’s stop sending billions to the anti-American Islamic supremacists in Pakistan and Egypt. Let’s stop funding the ideological extremism of Saudi Arabia. Let’s stop sending aid to the Palestinians since that money goes, and has always gone, into the greedy hands of their rabid leadership, who have a vested interest in refusing to improve the lot of their people. In fact, let’s demand full refunds.

But cutting off our allies is another matter, especially the vulnerable Israel. That’s not a solution to violence – it’s an invitation for more of it.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • JacksonPearson

    "Paul’s supporters claim he’s not anti-Israel; he wants to end foreign aid to everyone, including our enemies."

    So according to the above statement, Israel has been incredibly placed in the same category as America's enemies. Whew….????

    • 4_Constitution

      These are the same idiots who voted for Gary Johnson to the tune of 1.9 million votes that GAVE Obama the election.

      I hate them more than I hate the Dems.

      • JacksonPearson

        Exactly. Liken to Ross Perot and Bill Clinton. In this last election, a vote for Gary Johnson was likewise, a vote for Kenyan, Barack Hussein Obama II. So along with voter fraud, their so-called protest vote gave socialist/closet Muslim Baracky four more. Amazing common sense and reasoning…not!!!!

      • navdan

        You hate people who voted their conscience, didn't want to continue the decades-long status quo back-and-forth, and feel that every person has the right to live his or her life the way they see fit as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's right to do the same?

        You're right — those bastards!

        • Choi

          They voted their" conscience"?
          They VOTED Democratic by NOT VOTING Republican.
          There is NO Difference between Paul Supporters and Left-Wing America Haters,except the Lefties are more honest about it.
          Their 'conscience"?
          F_them and their "conscience".

          • navdan

            No…they voted libertarian by voting libertarian.

            I'm not a Democratic. I strongly disagree with Democrats on most things.

            I'm not a Republican. While I agree with Republicans on many more things than Democrats, I have fundamental things I don't agree with Romney about (along with fundamental things I disagree with regarding other GOP items).

            So, by your statement, I'm a Left-Wing America Hater. Except for the fact that I can't stand most left-wing ideas. And that I've served in the military for over 11 years. And spent many days carrying a pocket Constitution with me in my back pocket.

            But I also won't abide by the fact that both sides are big-government in their own different ways, and "the lesser of two evils" is the same game that's been played for decades. So yes: I vote my conscience. F me, then.

          • navdan

            Oh, and you'll love this: I stood in line for an hour and a half to vote third party, and would gladly do it again.

          • Mary Sue

            Kang on Treehouse of Horror VII: "Go ahead. THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY!"

          • Mary Sue

            knowingly and wilfully throwing one's vote away like that is giving an election to the Dems. It's about the same as voting Dem. Even idiots in the NDP up north here recognize that. One time they tried to get a Liberal party candidate to NOT run so as to not "split the vote" and see the Conservative candidate get elected. They even SAID, "A vote for the Liberals is a vote for the Conservatives".

            Your conscience is not helpful because it allowed something WORSE to get in.

          • navdan

            I mentioned my reasoning a bit below in my reply to Omar.

            I think Obama is much worse than Romney. In no way would I ever vote for him and the damage he'd continue to do to the country.

            I also won't vote for someone who already states and demonstrates policy that's inconsistent with the Constitutional oath of office – and I definitely wouldn't do it knowing that that essentially ensures he's the only GOP candidate for the next 8 years.

            While I do care that Romney's not as bad as Obama, I'm also not going to partake in yet another 4-year round of voting in the less-sh***y guy.

          • Omar

            So, I'm guessing that you support the far-left Workers World Party, huh? WWP hates America and supports totalitarianism so much that it would support any enemy of democracy.

          • navdan

            No, Omar. You haven't read a single thing I've written in response to you to make it clear how absurd and far off your assumptions about me are.

            In part, I don't support a candidate who is complicit in violating the 4th Amendment with continued support of the Patriot Act, and who would support undermining Due Process by agreeing with the NDAA. Because of that alone (not even going into any other issues), I couldn't support Romney. I certainly couldn't support him being the only GOP candidate for the next 8 years. And for those reasons and a massive host of others, I can't vote for Obama.

            What's mind-boggling to me isn't that you disagree with me; it's that in other comments, I can give you at least a small background into my life to demonstrate that I'm not coming from any position that validates your ridiculous assumptions (i.e. "far-left Workers World Party), but you STILL continue to spew them. Your blatant and willful ignorance, along with your consistent M.O. of having all your points essentially be unfounded leaps in logic coupled with hyperbolic character name-calling, undermines any legitimate point you could ever hope of making.

          • thatruth

            LOL at your vote for my statist to keep the other statist out. The fact is both of the parties are not serious about debt reduction and Mittens wasn't all that different then Obama. I will never vote for another big government RINO again, especially one that believes there are "Good parts to ObamaCare". Ron Paul may misguided and wrong about his foreign policy, but at least he has a solution to America's fiscal problems that aren't lock and step with the rest of the big Government Keynesian's that were running. Mittens wouldn't have saved anything, we would still be in a debt spiral with continued devaluation of the dollar while lacking the overall fortitude to reform mandatory spending.

      • Viet Vet

        I agree, I too hate them worse than I hate the left. They are dangerous moonbats. Far right anarchists. So far right that they end up sharing many of the same positions with the left. So it is no wonder that they wouldn't care if Obummer was re-elected or not.

      • thatruth

        Gary Johnson was a big proponent of the 10th amendment and the abolition of the income tax. Something someone with 4_Constitution as a name would be in appeasement of. More so than a man that believes that government can use it coercive nature to force man into buying a product.

  • Neil

    When you're on top of the world and you're on Cloud Nine, you start to understand things. This is where Ron Paul and his supporters are… on Cloud Nine.

    Although we can't convince you right now that continuously putting our hand in the Middle Eastern cookie jar will result in blowback, you'll start to come to our side in the future. As our economy falters because of too much spending, a widespread military diluted all over the world, an out-of-control welfare system, etc… You'll start to look back and eventually you'll join Cloud Nine with us and understand everything.

    I feel sorry for Israel though. We've been aiding them financially, militarily, and with international support. Whenever the UN wants to investigate human rights abuses in Palestine by the Israeli government, the US always vetoes any movement that would investigate Israel.

    But trust me, when the fiscal cliff comes, and it will come just as Ron Paul has predicted the housing bubble, the first thing that we will cut is our military. The people will finally realize that the military has to be the first thing to go. So all of that money, weapons, and international support for Israel will disappear. And every nation that Israel has wronged will appear. The Arab Spring that the United States so openly supported has replaced many secular governments with many fundamentally Islamic governments. So all of these Arab countries that used to fight with one another will unite in their sympathy with Palestine.

    Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan… You say "so what?" right? Because Israel already beat these three in the Six-Day War in 1967. But guess what… Iran will now join the battlefield. The United States and Israel concocted a dangerous plan to enact very harsh sanctions on Iran. And since Iraq has been replaced with a minority Shiite government, believe me Iraqis will also join the fight. So will Syria.

    We want to cut military and financial aid to Israel so that they have the incentive to form peace talks with Palestine instead of restricting their travel routes, restricting food supplies to Palestine, creating an apartheid state within Palestine, building settlement homes over Palestinian territory, and throwing grenades at Palestinian ambulances in attempts to impede Palestinian health services.

    Remember this as you come onto Cloud Nine with us in a few years.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Paul with his cockamamie blowback theory is retarded. So are his many kook followers.

      • Glennd1

        This from a person who purposefully labels himself "ObamaYoMoma"…

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Paul with his cockamamie blowback theory is retarded. So are his many kook followers."

        It's the foreign policy side of, "Islam is the religion of peace." And, "If the USA wasn't so evil, we wouldn't have these problems." They just can't come right out and say these laughable things because many of their sheep would be offended, but these are the root implications of these positions.

    • 2Anglico

      Israel did not fight Lebanon in the Six Day war. The rest of your 7 or so paragraphs are just as untrue.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Although we can't convince you right now that continuously putting our hand in the Middle Eastern cookie jar will result in blowback…"

      I'm calling your bluff. What specifically does it mean: "continuously putting our hand in the Middle Eastern cookie jar" and what is the correct policy specifically? Let them all kill each other and don't worry about what the rest of the world does either?

      Let me translate "cloud 9" for you, where you admit you live. You are delusional. These means you have dreams that are not based on reality. This means you want to direct policy based on fantasy.

      "As our economy falters because of too much spending, a widespread military diluted all over the world, an out-of-control welfare system, etc… You'll start to look back and eventually you'll join Cloud Nine with us and understand everything. "

      The problem is complex with interdependencies, and therefore your delusions are correct? You're arguing against yourself and at best are only admitting how important it is to solve these problems, You've done nothing at all to show your solution isn't going to make these things worse, and that is exactly what it would do. In fact, 0'Bama's policies come closer to Ron Paul than any other president's, AND that is exactly what the problem is. Your lack of a clue to this is astounding, hence the label for your virtual residence.

      Oh yeah, don't forget that your position depends on "moderate Islam breaking out all over the world" or simple making sure that somehow it's really true after all that the religion of peace offers us nothing to be fearful about when we ensure they have more global power than ever.

      Cloud 9? How about one of the lower floors in Dante's description of Hell?

      • Viet Vet

        Yes, cloud 9 usually means la la land. Libertarians (big L) are at least as insane as the left is.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Yes, cloud 9 usually means la la land. Libertarians (big L) are at least as insane as the left is."

          It's a confession that he and they are delusional, whether he realizes that or not.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Whenever the UN wants to investigate human rights abuses in Palestine by the Israeli government, the US always vetoes any movement that would investigate Israel."

      The situation is grossly unjust, against Israel. I think we should investigate you for human rights abuses. I've heard all sorts of rumors. Even after we find no evidence, I'll keep it up forever and soon people will talk about you as though there is just cause to assume you have "abused the human rights" of your children or whoever. That's how it works in the civilization jihad. But I suppose that doesn't exist on Cloud 9 where you proudly reside.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "when the fiscal cliff comes, and it will come just as Ron Paul has predicted the housing bubble, the first thing that we will cut is our military. The people will finally realize that the military has to be the first thing to go. So all of that money, weapons, and international support for Israel will disappear. And every nation that Israel has wronged will appear. The Arab Spring that the United States so openly supported has replaced many secular governments with many fundamentally Islamic governments. So all of these Arab countries that used to fight with one another will unite in their sympathy with Palestine. "

      American hegemony is unsustainable, therefore 0'Bama has the right foreign policy, but needs to stop domestic spending because that is your only problem with him. I see.

      OK. Ever hear the phrase, "global economy?" Take a look at any place ruled by sharia to see how productive it is. Now as the US hegemony shrinks, you've got new 3 choices, sharia, China or Russia. Which would be best for the USA and the global economy? You think we can allow our hegemony to shrink as if it's purely a deficit to bring stability around the world (because of cost) without counting the cost of losing trade relationships that our economy depends on? The productivity of the globe depends on Western military and cultural hegemony.

      Read that last sentence again to all your buddies on Cloud 9 the next time you think you have anything to teach anyone about how to "fix" our problems.

    • Omar

      Neil, you are so wring. Israel respects human rights for everyone, regardless of characteristics. Arabs living in Israel have more rights and liberties as Israeli citizens than people living in other countries in the Middle East. For over 60 years, Israel has tried to make peace with its neighbors in the Middle East, but the neighbors don't want peace. Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and their allies want the destruction of Israel as well as an Islamist dominated world. Also, why do you keep blaming America for what goes on in the world. Why don't you blame Russia and China for their support for the Assad regime in Syria? Moscow and Beijing are the chief reasons why there has been little to no international action on the Syrian crisis. Why don't you criticize Communist China's illegal occupation of Tibet (an occupation which has lasted for 62 years-since 1950)? Why don't you criticize Russia for supporting China's illegal occupation of Tibet. Why don't you criticize China's support for the genocidal Islamist regime in Sudan (which behaves worse than South Africa's former apartheid regime)? You don't criticize Russia or China because you support both regimes. Neil, you are an America-hating, democracy-hating, totalitarian-loving Stalinist/Maoist who loves Sharia law. You want a world where women would be treated like chattel, where homosexuals would be lynched from cranes for being homosexuals, and where Jews and people of other faiths and beliefs (as well as non-religious people) would not be allowed. You want a world ruled by Marxism and Sharia law. Instead of cutting of aid to Israel, the world should cut off all aid to China, but you support the regime in China, since you are a Communist. Bottom line: America, Britain, Israel and the rest of the free world want peace, democracy and freedom, while Russia, China, Iran "Palestine" (invented people) and their allies want imperialism, destruction and totalitarianism. That's the reality.

  • Mark Anderson

    The people who are lost are the ones who run Front Page Magazine. The idea that we must alter the rule of law or remain on a perpetual war footing to combat terrorism is absurd. We don't have the money to do that and it's not in anybody's interests.

    • Mary Sue

      alter the rule of law? Dude are you high?

      • 4_Constitution

        Yes, he is and so are all the other Ronulans.

        • Mary Sue

          Well Ron Paul is pro-legalization of Mary Jane, so, I guess so!

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "alter the rule of law? Dude are you high?"

        If "alter" means returning to it's traditional enforcement, his comment might make sense. They're opposed to this.

    • Drakken

      If you think things are bad now, you haven't seen anything yet. War is brewing and when it comes you head in the sand lefties will be the first to go because folks like you refuse to see reality. Through out history pacifist have one thing in common, they fill holes in the ground called mass graves. I wish that I could feel one iota of sympathy for you and yours, but I am fresh out.

    • JacksonPearson

      Do you know what the term "Dhimmitude" means? Translated: Bend over!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "The idea that we must alter the rule of law or remain on a perpetual war footing to combat terrorism is absurd. We don't have the money to do that and it's not in anybody's interests."

      Oh yes, fighting terror doesn't serve anyone's interests. OK then.

  • http://twitter.com/DonCarlitos @DonCarlitos

    The positions echoed by the author are morally bankrupt and devoid of honesty. The truth about Israeli war crimes, its nuclear program, its espionage efforts targeted at US secrets; and, its general arrogance and intransigence is becoming more widely understood. An ally like that nobody needs. The days of this kind of apologist, wishful thinking are numbered, as recent UN decisions have demonstrated. The EU will soon follow and Israel and the US will stand alone in the world, as Paul suggests. In the mean time, the IDF continues to rain down collective punishment an disproportionate military response on the 1.5 million inhabitants of the world's larges open-air prison.

    • Mary Sue

      oh lookie here we got us another schmuckmotion wannabe. You wanna explain where you got your unedumacated ignorant point of view about Israel?

      • George

        How about we start with remembering the USS Liberty in 1967? I believe 34 American servicemen got a folded flag from the US Government. There is American blood on Israeli hands as well. Google it Mary Sue.

        • Mary Sue

          Oh, that thing that happened like what…45 years ago? ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS?! We should worry about an incident of Friendly Fire from over 4 decades ago, and ignore all the crap that the "Palestinians" have been doing since then?

          Earth to schmuck-motion wannabe: NOBODY CARES. The Israeli leadership sure as HELL isn't the same now as it was then. Besides, who was president then? OH yeah Mr. Great Society. Greaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat. What was also going on in 1967?

          OH YEAH A FREAKING WAR WITH THE ARABS! Arab countries that wanted to ANNHILATE THE JEWS. It was a case of mistaken identity. People don't realize tech wasn't as advanced then as it is now. Heck, the USA accidentally friendly fired some Canadians back during Dubya, nobody on earth thinks that was deliberate.

          If the USS Liberty happened like freaking YESTERDAY maybe you would have a point. But it didn't, so you don't.

          Here's a news flash for you, mr. ignorant in history while taking history out of context:

          Israel drops leaflets before they bomb Hamas. Or rocket it. You wanna know who the human rights abusers are? Hamas. Firing rockets whilst among civilians. And if you really think they have no actual choice where to fire that doesn't have people in it, you really are a purple koolaid drinking, brain-deceased quisling.

          • George

            You seem to believe there is a statute of limitations on historical accountability. Perhaps we should forget the Israeli borders that were drawn in the 1960's as well, and start all over.

          • Drakken

            If you have such a hard on for your pali friends, please by all means put your money where your mouth is and go join them.

          • Mary Sue

            I'm sure they were thorough enough back in 1967, there, fella. If Historical Accountability has No Statute of Limitations, where is your outrage over the Nazification of the Palestinians because of the actions of one al-Husseni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem back before there was even a state of Israel and even before the Palestinians decided to call themselves that, who wanted to Kill All Jews and was more than happy to help Hitler do so?

            YES WE SHOULD forget the 1940's (NOT the 1960's) borders, because what they call the "1967 borders" are actually the 1940s ones, and they are WORSE because they would make Israel literally undefendable.

            Take a look at the map that existed prior to the formation of the state of Israel. There was an entire area that encompasses not only "Palestine" but also Sinai, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. The so-called "Palestinians" had MANY places within the original parcel that they could go to legitimately.

            Israel won the West Bank AND the Gaza strip fair and square, stop QQing. Umad bro?

          • 2Anglico

            Israel's borders were drawn by the UN in the '40s. The present day borders are the result of the Arab states getting their asses kicked by a few measly Jews. Isn't it too bad that 250 million Arabs can't kill all the Jews once and for all? Would not the world be a better place without those trouble making Jews?
            The above post is a combination of sarcasm and ridicule, it is not an attempt to change George's mind because he already knows it ALL.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You seem to believe there is a statute of limitations on historical accountability"

            Yes and lying about it since that time doesn't help you prosecute your case either. What is your case exactly other than pointing to anti-Semitic rants about it to be found with the help of google?

            "Perhaps we should forget the Israeli borders that were drawn in the 1960's as well, and start all over."

            Since there's no statute, as we agree, it still goes to Israeli sovereignty except that all Muslims must now leave according to your preferred rules. Do your Muslim masters know what you're preaching? Oh yes, no problem as long as you add their lies to yours about how all the prophets were Islamic and so forth and that makes them the natural rulers of the earth as well as it's original inhabitants.

            Where does that leave you by the way?

          • Taimy

            Mr. supporter of Nazi Israel, how about Iran throwing leaflets on Israel saying, "Leave this goddamned fascist country which has oppressed and killed Palestinians because we are dropping a nuke to annihilate criminal Israeli government and criminal IDF headquarters and any crime state machinery of Israel"?

          • Mary Sue

            Except they wouldn't, because they'd gladly kill ("martyr") Palestinian Arabs in Israel to get rid of all the Jews in Israel in one fell swoop.

            You've bought into a pack of lies. Israel is not criminal. The Palestinian Hamas and Hexbollah organizations are.

            Stop 'slamsplaining.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Mr. supporter of Nazi Israel"

            Credibility = zero

            "how about Iran throwing leaflets on Israel saying, "Leave this goddamned fascist country which has oppressed and killed Palestinians because we are dropping a nuke to annihilate criminal Israeli government and criminal IDF headquarters and any crime state machinery of Israel"?"

            Because why?

            Never mind psycho, I'm sure you're too busy. Run along please.

          • Omar

            Taimy, quit being an apologist for leftist/Islamist aggression. Hamas, Hezbollah and their allies are the real Nazis.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "How about we start with remembering the USS Liberty in 1967? I believe 34 American servicemen got a folded flag from the US Government. There is American blood on Israeli hands as well. "

          Oh please. And that's Israel's fault too, because of how you tell the story. Do you even know what happened?

          Israel is so evil, they decided, "Hey, let's attack the US when we're surrounded and need their help. That will work."

          Nope. Israel discovered the Liberty spying on…Israel for hours, and passing the intel on to the UK, who passed it on to Jordan. It was a bluff on the part of the US that lasted for several hours and many warnings and with the 1967 Arab (Islamic) Israeli war going on, Israel IMO had no choice, or at the very least, determined that they had no choice other than to sink the ship. The US bluffed and once the attack commenced, did not defend the ship. They never revealed what happened because it was Western duplicity that led to that tragedy.

          • George

            No, I do not know ALL of what happened, but the way I understand, it is indisputable that men on the Liberty died as a result of an Israeli attack. Maybe there was a threat, either percieved or real? I really do not know,
            But I would like to make the point that whatever differences the Israelis and Palestinians are their problems to resolve. If you look at a map from 2000 years ago, the territorial borders seem to be in dispute. The US has no authority to choose sides, and our meddling interferes with the soveriegnty of both countries. Let them figure it out!

            Playing the role of policemen of the world is not in our Constitution, and is thus, by definition, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It is time we return to the principles this country was founded upon.

          • Mary Sue

            2000 years ago there were no Arabs there.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "No, I do not know ALL of what happened, but the way I understand, it is indisputable that men on the Liberty died as a result of an Israeli attack. Maybe there was a threat, either percieved or real? I really do not know, "

            Well ok then. Why did you present it as salient to current events or to our bilateral relationship, or evidence of Israeli treachery? What exactly was your point about something you know so little about?

            "But I would like to make the point that whatever differences the Israelis and Palestinians are their problems to resolve. If you look at a map from 2000 years ago, the territorial borders seem to be in dispute. The US has no authority to choose sides, and our meddling interferes with the soveriegnty of both countries. Let them figure it out! "

            That's fine until it has regional and global security implications, which it does. Islam + nuclear weapons = the whole world should worry.

            "Playing the role of policemen of the world is not in our Constitution"

            Right, because the plausibility and implications of today's weapons were completely unknown when it was written, so that's hardly a surprise.

            "and is thus, by definition, UNCONSTITUTIONAL"

            No, it transcends the constitution unfortunately, though some acts have probably been unconstitutional, I can't comment on any because I don't see any that you raised.

            "It is time we return to the principles this country was founded upon"

            True. Perhaps if you did know more history (and who has time to learn enough to become an expert on the middle east and its history?), you just might understand some of the concerns I've written about here. Think about the trends in technology and the global implications of those technologies used against us either immediately, or after first building up resources by oppressing and stealing from others that you don't want us to be concerned about. They'll use that power against you or maybe if you are lucky enough to be so narcissistic as not to care, they'll only kill or enslave all of your descendants.

            You think it's a joke? If you want to understand how serious it is, start cracking the books on the factual history of Islam and Western civilization while your at it. I can send you a book list some time soon if you seriously would like to investigate these histories to learn or even to challenge whatever you call people like me.

    • Mary Sue

      btw it's not an open-air prison to anyone but a terrorist, laughing boy.

      • Taimy

        And Hamas rockets kill none but occupying terrorists who came from Russian and Eastern Europe!

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "And Hamas rockets kill none but occupying terrorists who came from Russian and Eastern Europe!"

          Labeling a legitimate, just occupier as "terrorists" is falling in to the trap of malicious doublespeak. Israel is a sovereign nation with fully functioning judicial system, a constitution that guarantees human rights for all citizens and even for their enemies who don't deserve it, rule of law comparable to the USA and in short, all the features of civilization people like you claim to favor while denouncing them with lies that totally invert the true objective facts.

          That makes you a liar or a dupe.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "btw it's not an open-air prison to anyone but a terrorist, laughing boy."

        Even they know it's not a prison. It's a rhetorical prison in Islamic supremacist rhetoric used against the West. It's 100% transparent to anyone who pays attention to facts that are real (objective, empirical).

        There is a a film maker named Pierre Rehov who makes a lot of documentaries about the issues surrounding Israel vs. Islam and their dupes. He has about 12 by now. They aren't Blu-Ray quality, but the content is the best available with very little editing or editorializing of any kind. He speaks French and (I think) Arabic and gets the Jihadis to brag to him about all sorts of topics. The stuff he uncovers is mind-blowing to anyone who thinks Islamic dupes and jihadis have any real "grievances" other than the burden to carry out the will of the god of cheese.

        There is another documentary – I love liberal-bias documentaries that reveal evidence without realizing it. It's called, "To Die in Jerusalem" and is edited to make the Jews look bad and the Palestinians look like victims of Israel more worthy of empathy than the Israeli victims. If you have a dull mind, their intended effect probably works. But one of the many things they reveal is the fallacy of "prison life" in a refugee camp. There is a man, I kid you not, polishing a late model BMW and in a serious tone, claiming their lives are exactly like those of the Jews interned and eventually killed by Hitler's schemes. Imagine that. He's waxing a car that costs more than any I've ever purchased myself and I'm not poor. Those are your victims. They're even worse than the hypocrites who show up to Occupy rallies and then return to 7-figure salaried positions the day after they vandalize some "evil corporation." They are evil mindless liars who spin propaganda legends in to first-person narratives that sound to naive ears like eyewitnesses. Ever fable was told as a first-person narrative as though they witnessed it themselves, just like the insanity of describing oneself as a prisoner while waxing a $50,000 car.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Rehov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Die_in_Jerusalem

    • Gislef

      What would be a proportionate military reponse to thousands of missiles launched at Israel in the last decade?

      Hint: prisons don't allow missiles.

      • Taimy

        What about Israeli occupation? War crimes like building illegal settlements, killing Palestinians, stealing their natural resources, their land, war crime of besieging Gaza? Rockets are nothing compared to Israeli crimes.

        • Mary Sue

          blah blah blah, war crimes my behind.

          How about the Hamas/Hexbollah war crimes of using civilian buildings where civilians LIVE to launch their missiles and rockets, instead of out in the middle of sand-inhabited nowhere, which is most certainly an option?

          Earth to 'slamsplainer: USING CIVILIANS AS HUMAN SHIELDS IS AN ACTUAL WAR CRIME. And that's precisely what Hamas is doing.

          It's not like Israel takes the IDF and just routinely just goes around shooting Palestinians for no good reason, dude. What natural resources? The Palestinians wouldn't know what to do with natural resources if they were given a detailed instruction manual in the Koran!

          Beseiging Gaza? Are you high on hash? Israel WITHDREW from Gaza. Egypt's border with Gaza is so porous as to render any "beseiging" moot!

          Israel grants actual human rights to all its citizens, jew, arab, and other alike. They actually have the progressive Gay rights! What sort of "oppression" is even possible when they're more FREE than the surrounding nations, including the places the PLO or Hamas or Hexbollocks, and all those other stupid Pali organizations run?

          • Glennd1

            But you won't deal with what Israel has done. I concede readily all that you say about what the Palestinians have done but you are utterly ignorant of Israel's immoral actions. It's so sad, you are so cocksure, but only have half the story. Go read Benny Morris's 1948 and get back to us when you have a clue.

          • Mary Sue

            Why do I care what Israel allegedly did in 1948? That doesn't excuse what the Palestinians did.

            The problem is everything Israel has done has been to ward off the radical Muslims that simply want to Kill All Jews. You know what 1948 was? A couple years after the end of the HOLOCAUST. If I were Jewish in Israel I'd be nervous about a bunch of Muslims wanting to just finish what it was Hitler was doing, too. They were making their Safe Space™ where they could defend themselves from such fascism, and defend themselves they did. You're pretty ignorant if you ignore all the crap that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem did, during WW II, to HELP Hitler in his quest to Kill All Jews.

            What exactly was "immoral" that Israel did? Take back their own land? Nope, sorry.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "What about Israeli occupation?"

          You are right. They should have removed all of the criminals rather than trying to pretend they could foster nation building. The crime of occupation is a crime against the Israeli people, but a compromise to appease Islamic jihadis by leaving people alive who deserve to die, and those people go out and ruin the lives of "Palestinians" who happen to be innocent as well as Israeli lives.

          When will we deal decisively with this "Palestinian" criminals?

          "War crimes like building illegal settlements"

          LOL. What crime specifically? Rhetorical crimes? I can call you a war criminal because your rhetoric has consequences that harm the West. It's a crime we have to hear liars like you all the time. It is not actionable though.

          "killing Palestinians"

          Killing "Palestinians" who start wars. Yup.

          "stealing their natural resources"

          Liar. You have no clue what you're talking about. You sound like another Rachel ready to throw your life away for Islamic supremacist lies.

          "their land"

          What land was stolen? Is this poetic license again, or repeating Islamic imperialist propaganda?

          "war crime of besieging Gaza?"

          It's called, "legitimate defense" and actually is far too benign due to dupes like you and the pressure put on politicians here in the once-mighty USA.

          "Rockets are nothing compared to Israeli crimes"

          100% inversion of the true objective facts. Rockets are the just cause for all Israeli military actions, and plenty more if it would just act justly and quickly to end suffering with Israeli complete victory. There are no, "Israeli crimes" as a sovereign. None.

        • Omar

          Taimy, stop repeating lies against Israel. You are an Islamist jihadist who wants world domination. What you want is a world dominated by Islamo-fascism. Israel wants peace, while its Islamist adversaries want world domination.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "The truth about Israeli war crimes.."

      List them and we'll talk about evidence…but then you'll be revealed as another kook liar or dupe.

      "The days of this kind of apologist, wishful thinking are numbered, as recent UN decisions have demonstrated."

      The UN vote was basically 2 factions combined to vote against sanity; appeasers and Islamic supremacists. We know who you're siding with already based on your own words.

      "The EU will soon follow and Israel and the US will stand alone in the world, as Paul suggests."

      Whether or not some of the facts fall his way, nothing Paul says is ever useful. He's a traitor.

      "In the mean time, the IDF continues to rain down collective punishment…"

      What kind of BS phrase is that, if not one invented by jihadis and Soviet propagandists? Do you even understand the meaning of the phrase? It doesn't apply. Any act of war, including defensive, can be described that way. That doesn't mean the intention is punishment, but when it is, that is a part of war that by the way, Israel never starts. Whatever "collective punishment" dealt out by Israel is well-deserved collectively (since wars are fought collectively, ever think of that before repeating silly propaganda phrases?), as sad as individual injustice is, it would be far more unjust to use worries about these sad facts of life by letting the jihadis get away with even more terror unpunished at all by their supposed government or their victims. What planet are you from? Oh yes, you mentioned the cloud but I'm not familiar with which planet that is associated with.

      "an disproportionate military response"

      According to their enemy. When does an attacker get to determine the proportion of the defensive military response. Cloud 9 or whatever, clearly you've got other issues than being detached from reality.

      "on the 1.5 million inhabitants of the world's larges open-air prison."

      Oh yes, the prison with vacation resorts, an active economy based on arms, luxury goods, shakedown money income from idiotic Western governments, not to mention jihad funding, all features of a prison. In fact, all of the suffering and I mean 100% of it can be blamed on Israel's enemies and you…unfathomably poor thinkers blame the target of Islamic jihad because it fits your fantasy.

    • Ghostwriter

      Idiots like @DonCarlitos don't get it. Israel has a right to exist. They're not going to let themselves be massacred simply because people like you wail on constantly for the Palestinians,a people who have little interest in anything outside of committing acts of terror and killing other people.

    • Omar

      Don Carlitos, Israel has wanted to make peace for a long time. You happen to support radical Islamism and communism. Why don't you talk about China's brutal occupation of Tibet. Why don't you talk about Russia's support for the Assad dictatorship in Syria? You don't criticize them because you are an America-hating, democracy-hating, totalitarian loving Stalinist/Maoist who supports Islamist Sharia Law. Quit repeating leftist/Islamist propaganda and learn from facts.

  • Robert

    You can always tell that you are in for some comedy when you read the words, "Blame America First." In other words, what you are about to read has no intellectual depth or historical perspective. And, boy, hasn't our status quo foreign policy just been an amazing success?

    • Mary Sue

      Oh and what is your better idea?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Oh and what is your better idea?"

        Sucking up to Ron Paul of course.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "You can always tell that you are in for some comedy when you read the words, "Blame America First." In other words, what you are about to read has no intellectual depth or historical perspective. And, boy, hasn't our status quo foreign policy just been an amazing success?"

      It seems to be well over your head. Most voters used to understand the limits of what they understood. Today everyone imagines themselves to be informed enough to talk endlessly about things they don't understand. That or they imagine themselves informed enough to regurgitate some vague position they heard from some other nitwit.

      The liberal left has been forcing compromises on our foreign policy since before WWII started. It's been a long battle. Giving in to isolationists, who are on the left in most cases, is the wrong answer. It's the answer of traitors and dreamers with no basis of understanding the issues.

  • UCSPanther

    Looks like the Ron Paul personality cult is still alive…

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Looks like the Ron Paul personality cult is still alive…"

      He'll be good for some laughs (and frustration) till his grave. Hopefully the cult will die with him. His fallacies are not new, and won't likely ever die completely.

  • Carl

    TL;DR: Author loves war.

    • Mary Sue

      ts;dr, person commenting doesn't understand diddly squat.

      • UCSPanther

        Just sit back and watch these idiots express their love for their "eternal leader". They remind me of how the North Koreans' worship Kim Il Sung.

        • Mary Sue

          Oh yeah have a look at some of these morons piling in. LIke George and Carl and DonDoritos and the Parrot. I expect DeSpawn and Schmuckmotion any time now.

      • Mary Sue

        (that's CARL doesn't understand diddly squat)

    • Drakken

      And useful idiot leftist like you side with our enemies.

      • Viet Vet

        They share many of the same traits and positions as leftists, so it is hard to tell them apart, but this moonbat is a Libertarian (big L). Leftists believe that Bush blew the WTC up and Libertarians believe Israel did it. Wingnuts and Moonbats. Both are druggies, Both hate the U.S. military, and are appeasers/isolationists. Both can't imagine a tryrant so bad that they wouldn't roll over for him. Both are mostly atheists and particularly hate Christianity and Jewry. They share several other traits too, but if you check out Lew Rockwell, you'll see another fruitcake as nutty as Paul is.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Author loves war"

      You're projecting. Some people love conclusions, not war. Some times you need war to win peace. It's not always true, but with sound policy and a strong military, it can be true.

      • Viet Vet

        And it's not as if we are going broke spending on National Defense. The Defense budget is only 17.8% of the budget. And that spending is constitutional.

  • Mr. Polly

    Israel is not an "ally." Israel is an extortionist.

    • Mary Sue

      oh hi there mister parrot. Are you tired of being stupid?

    • http://www.themadjewess.wordpress.com MAD JEWESS

      Israel has been the ally, here.
      America is THEIR enemy.

      As usual, spoken bass ackwards.
      Paulans FAIL with the Pali-question…

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Yes, it's all about the jizya. Funny we pay most of it to 0'Bama's best friends in the Muslim Brotherhood. Given how much "aid" never paid back by backwards countries, and how much military weaponry we give to Israel's enemies, how much sense would it make to then say, "Nothing for you, you're Jews and Muslims hate you." Not to mention the fact that "those Jews" are practically the only ones that repay their aid. I never hear you idiots mention that distinction between flushing money down the toilet and investing in our best ally, who has developed some of our best technologies for us…whatever.

      That's merely rhetorical because I know that makes sense to you.

    • JacksonPearson

      Insulting MORON…when was the last time you had an enema from the neck up?

    • Omar

      Israel is an ally, Mr. Polly. China is an extortionist. Look at what Beijing has done for the past 63 years.

  • Mary Sue

    Oh, and can you come up with better?

  • Mitch Connor

    I can't stop laughing now that the majority is finally against this idiotic way of thinking. To read bloggers like Mark, desperately clinging to this prehistoric worldview… it only makes the victory that much sweeter. Thanks for the laughs.

    • Mary Sue

      The idiotic way of thinking is the one that pretends that Leaving Britney errr I mean the Terrorists alone will give us peace.

      • Mitch Connor

        Again… priceless. You guys are just making this taste way too sweet.

        • Mary Sue

          I bet you are the kind of moron that thinks people shouldn't have weapons because of a movie where the evil alien monster wouldn't hurt you if you were unarmed.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Again… priceless. You guys are just making this taste way too sweet."

          No problem. You're easily amused. Enjoy the sugar and free phone while it lasts.

      • Viet Vet

        Yep, they are appeasers of the first magnitude. Appeasement is what causes wars. Klinton's 8 years of Islamofascist appeasement gave the terrorists the confidence to plan the 9/11 attack. In fact bin Laden said that in an interview. He said that Klinton's retreat from Somalia/Mogadishu was when they saw that the U.S. was unwilling to take casualties and began planning the 9/11 attack.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Yep, they are appeasers of the first magnitude. Appeasement is what causes wars. Klinton's 8 years of Islamofascist appeasement gave the terrorists the confidence to plan the 9/11 attack. In fact bin Laden said that in an interview. He said that Klinton's retreat from Somalia/Mogadishu was when they saw that the U.S. was unwilling to take casualties and began planning the 9/11 attack."

          Totally correct and salient. Contrast the execution and outcome of Desert Storm with Somalia, and when the Saudi funded jihadis started turning on us. They realized they could have their cake and eat it to, and by that I mean use America's military to defend Sunni Saudi sovereign interests (getting virtually free defense while sucking us dry yet again) while funding terrorists to attack us by proxy.

          Who created the Saudi oil industry? Why did we even give them ownership? We're too nice. They were NEVER a legitimate sovereign by any Western standard. It was just wishful thinking from the dupes and too much presence there would not to be tolerated by the Soviets, which means the dupes were at play. We built nations using men from a hostile, murderous totalitarian civilization.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "I can't stop laughing now that the majority is finally against this idiotic way of thinking. To read bloggers like Mark, desperately clinging to this prehistoric worldview… it only makes the victory that much sweeter. Thanks for the laughs."

      You're proud because the electorate gave in to bribery and lies, not to mention unqualified votes from outright fraud? Laugh all you want, it won't last long. Delusion-based leadership is either chased out or it destroys its host. You won't be laughing when it ends.

      • Viet Vet

        Besides the fraud, the democrap vote is: marxists, communists, pro Islamofascists, low information voters and dependency voters. The last two are easy prey for the class warriors.

    • JacksonPearson

      Dhimmi's like you have had your head stuck up yur butt to long, come up for some fresh air.

  • http://twitter.com/timmycav73 @timmycav73

    americas foreign policy is working perfectly, except the government hast taken away enough of our rights!!!. if the government only abolished the constitution then that would teach those terrorists in robes eating falafels in a cave 50,000 miles away!!! hahahahhahahahaha pwnd

    • Mary Sue

      The sad part of that is Obama is likely to do that very thing.

  • Lee

    If only Joe and Sue Citizen will wake up. EVERYTHING Ron Paul has said so far these past two decades have happened! How on earth can Mary Sue still argue the pride of America, when it acts on behalf of the special interest, when it supports Israel and its 300+ Nuke Warheads, pisses on the parade of any Arab who whats a decent life for themselves (including independent, non interfering government and economic policies, the non slaughter of war, and the stop of depleted Uranium being poured over civilians in these countries, etc etc etc) If this happened to the USA and Israel, then they would have reason to go to war and fight a just war! Ironically they inflict these wars!! And this is the point Ron Paul is making!! The economy is in tatters, Obama grins as the patriot act kicks in, un-liberates the freedoms gained by the blood of many American fore-fathers, Every American (and his born and unborn child) is in debt to the tune of $5000 for the next century, paying back the bankers who Quantitive Eased the American Public into this situation of a fiscal cliff in the first place!! Sue should do herself a favour and listen to the farewell speech of Dr Paul……. objectively, logically, and without apathy! Long live America! Death to those who enslave them!

    • Mary Sue

      arguing the pride of america? Not exactly man. I'm arguing we can't ignore the terrorists, we CANNOT turn our back on Israel. And MY country, Canada, sure as hell has not turned its back on Israel. Canada may have ___t for military but at least it's doing there and not sitting around with its thumb up its @$$.

      If they wanted a decent life for themselves instead of blowing themselves up or firing rockets, they'd move to Jordan or even the United States by now. But the preponderance of evidence is they don't actually want a better life for themselves. They just want to kill all Jews.

      Just look at what Canada's doing. Our economy isn't in a shambles. Our banks have not been bailed out. We're doing just fine. And we're also not leaving Israel out to dry.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "If they wanted a decent life for themselves instead of blowing themselves up or firing rockets, they'd move to Jordan or even the United States by now"

        They'd give up on ruling the world on behalf of submission to the god of cheese.

    • http://www.themadjewess.wordpress.com MAD JEWESS

      Maybe so, but he is all wrong, all the time on Israel.

    • Ghostwriter

      Well,Lee,if they spent their time ACTUALLY spending their money on things like infrastructure instead of missiles to bomb Israel,they'd have a point,but they don't do that. What the Palestinians want is war with Israel and to kill Jews. Ron Paul is an idiot and a fool. His foreign policy is more fantasy driven than Obama's is. Both he and President Obama can't tell the difference between who's an enemy and who's a friend. What America needs is a foreign policy that was designed for the real world,not the fantasy world of people like Ron Paul and President Obama.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Well,Lee,if they spent their time ACTUALLY spending their money on things like infrastructure instead of missiles to bomb Israel"

        This is the understatement of the latter half of the 20th century, contender for understatement of the 21st century if things continue like this. Why is this so hard to figure out for some people? I know they don't ever present real facts, but can they have successfully avoiding all of the real evidence for long enough to talk so stupidly?

    • 2Anglico

      Mind numbed robot. The Jews this, the Neocons that, Palestinians just want a better life and they would have one if it were not for those sorry 3 million Jews…blah, blah…America sucks too.
      P.S., you forgot to mention the Burgerbilders and the Bohemian Grove.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "How on earth can Mary Sue still argue the pride of America, when it acts on behalf of the special interest, when it supports Israel and its 300+ Nuke Warheads, pisses on the parade of any Arab who whats a decent life for themselves (including independent, non interfering government and economic policies, the non slaughter of war, and the stop of depleted Uranium being poured over civilians in these countries, etc etc etc) "

      Thank you. At least for a Ron Paul cultist, you've articulated your fallacies with far greater precision than most.

      "And this is the point Ron Paul is making!"

      We understand. The problem is that he's ill-informed, or a liar paid off by OPEC interests, projecting his corruption on to others. In any case, the effect is the same as if he was a hypocrite. I don't know, he might be innocent by reason of insanity.

      "The economy is in tatters, Obama grins as the patriot act kicks in, un-liberates the freedoms gained by the blood of many American fore-fathers, Every American (and his born and unborn child) is in debt to the tune of $5000 for the next century, paying back the bankers who Quantitive Eased the American Public into this situation of a fiscal cliff in the first place!! "

      Being right about domestic concerns does not make you right in any way about your foreign policy delusions. Anarchy is not pretty. Sharia is even worse. The US ensures anarchy and Islamic sharia, not to mention coercive communism are all kept in check, or at least we once did a reasonable job to that end.

      No thanks to you, we were not able to eject the 0'Bama traitor.

      "Sue should do herself a favour and listen to the farewell speech of Dr Paul……. objectively, logically, and without apathy! Long live America! Death to those who enslave them!"

      Ron Paul is speaking on behalf of many aggressive enemies who want to enslave us. Now what? By the way, I think Ron Paul might be sincerely deluded. I have no animosity towards him whatsoever. He's dead wrong to the point of being very dangerous because he feeds haters domestically and throughout the world. You don't seem like one of them, and dupes always have a chance to wake up.

      There's hope for you.

    • Peritome

      Woah. I was going to leave some thoughtful comments about this particularl article, but with commenters like this, there's really no point.__Israel has been attacked in open warfare several times since it was etablished by the international community, beginning on the day of its creation. All the people living there, including all Arabs and muslims were given the right to stay, keep their land and given citizen ship and voting rights. They still have all that today. But Arab nations told them to leave in preparation for the initial war, and in the 60-plus years since have not chosen to return. I fact they would rather live in so-called temporary shelter, which are really cities in their own right, rather than recognize the Jewish homeland that the orld saw fit to allow.__And you say they piss on the parade of any Arab who wants a decent life. The Palestinians could have buit just as prosperous a nation in the last 60 years as the Jews did. Instead they wanted to play the victim, lick their wounds and propgandize against Israel. If it weren't for the muslim Palestinians the Middle East wqould be in far better shape today. If you're not old enough to remember, or intractably partisan, read your history.

      • Peritome

        And I'll add one more little thing. I would be a Libertarian today if they all didn't seem so sociopathic in their philosphy.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "And I'll add one more little thing. I would be a Libertarian today if they all didn't seem so sociopathic in their philosphy."

          LOL

          • Viet Vet

            Conservatism and libertarianism (small l) are first cousins, and Leftism and Libertarianism (big L) are first cousins.

          • Peritome

            <DIV id=yiv623543722> <DIV>First of all I don't know how you got my e-mail addres. I posted on a public site, and I thought my personal details would be private.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Secondly, I've never been met a libertarian that could give a consistent moral argument for anything.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>And thirdly, I think reponding to a personal e-mail address with a non-sensical LOL is mindless, and more than a little creepy.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Don't e-mail me again. And I'll unsubscribe from whatever posting service I was unfortunately required to join to post a comment on an otherwise excellent web-site.—

    • LibertarianToo

      If we just betray the only democracy in a crucial area of the planet, all economic and social problems will disappear . . . the Brudershaft will beat their scimitars into plowshares . . . we can behold the brave new world through the mesh of our burkas . . . Just listen to Dr Paul . . . Listen . . . drink your kool-aid . . .

      Ron Paul and other isolationist know-nothings in the Libertarian Party are the reason this libertarian is an Independent.

  • Mary Sue

    Geez where'd all these Jew hating, taqiyya-believing Ron Paul bots all come from? Is schmuckmotion having a secret meeting at his house now or something?

    • Lee

      No Mary Sue!….its really the clear thinking Americans that have become the bots……it seems. They swallow the propaganda of the mainstream media, they dont have a clue what is constitutional and what is not. Thats why the Obama-disaster is continuing and why the Bush-disaster to successfully laid the foundation for him. They are actually one and the same! The one just wears a blue tie and the other a red one and people think that they are different?? Really? These people who thumbs down so easily do not realise that they are part of the frog-in-the-boiling-water experiment and they somehow cant see the wood for the trees when they look at Israel. What will you say, now that Jasser Arrafat's body was exhumed this past week, if it is indeed found that he was poisoned (like so many other people) by Mossad (Israel) and the CIA (our beloved Patriot Act instigators). If assasinations were done to the Arabs its ok…. If they are bombarded with depleted Uranium its ok. Would it be ok if we were treated that way? Hopefully you would be the first one to defend our fatherland and our constitution?……or are you merely pandering after the entitlement benefits our country offers?

      • Mary Sue

        I suppose you forgot the small part where the palestinians want to KILL ALL JEWS™

    • Viet Vet

      I'm not surprised at all Mary Sue, because they use to do the same thing on David's old Moonbat Blog. All you had to have was an article that mentioned JEW or Lew Rockwell, and the moonbats would pile in with their insanity. They are absolutely out of kilter people.

  • navdan

    "Ron Paul’s foreign policy solutions appeal to those Blame America First (and Last) Chomsky devotees…"

    Don't forget they also appeal to all those Blame America First active duty military servicemembers, who donated more to Ron Paul's campaign then to all other GOP primary campaigns combined…

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Don't forget they also appeal to all those Blame America First active duty military servicemembers, who donated more to Ron Paul's campaign then to all other GOP primary campaigns combined…"

      Liberals in the military? Next you'll tell me there are gays and women. I just don't believe it.

      • navdan

        Who said anything about liberals?

        Either my point wasn't clear, or I misunderstand you: I'm wondering why the author broadly characterizes Ron Paul supporters as Blame America First types, when he got more donations from the group that would probably least characterize a "Blame America First" description.

        • Viet Vet

          You are a stupid fk for lying about that. The military votes in the 60th to 80th percentile for republican candidates, so the donations are going to follow closely along that line. They had a special admiration for GW Bush, who you Libertarians hated (along with Dick Cheney) as much as the left did. The war was all about oil right, you dumb fk!

          • navdan

            Read my point carefully this time, to avoid looking so ignorant for a second:

            In the GOP primary (all Republicans, you see, so your "60th to 80th percentile" thing is irrelevant), Ron Paul received more donations from active duty military personnel than all the other GOP candidates combined.

            But at least your irrelevant point was backed up by an intelligently-worded statement.

          • Viet Vet

            I guess my hate for you sonsabitches got in the way of my reading. But you reminded me of yet another trait you have in common with Leftists: Arrogance and Condescension.

          • Viet Vet

            I guess my hate for you s*o*n*s*a*b*i*t*c*h*e*s got in the way of my reading. But you reminded me of yet another common trait Libertarians have with Leftists: Arrogance and Condescension.

          • navdan

            So, it's now arrogant and condescending to point out that the fundamental purpose of your reply to me didn't matter because you didn't read and understand my comment?

            That must make debate pretty difficult.

            Maybe it's possible that the reason people seem arrogant and condescending when you're disagreeing with them is, because while you're busy mashing your keyboard and calling names, they're busy attempting to make conversational points that don't rely on name-calling and completely incorrect assumptions about the motives behind others' views…

            I'm not going to make any assumptions as to the motives behind your point of view, because I never got the chance to actually understand it with some type of dialogue. But, I can guarantee that with your instant leap into irrational anger, you'll never understand mine (which, by the way – and I've mentioned this in another area – is the point of view from someone who is a strong Constitutionalist, has taken the Oath of Office multiple times throughout 11+ years in military service, and is also disgusted by the vast majority of actual progressive leftists in this country).

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Either my point wasn't clear, or I misunderstand you: I'm wondering why the author broadly characterizes Ron Paul supporters as Blame America First types, when he got more donations from the group that would probably least characterize a "Blame America First" description."

          Even if that anomaly is significant of something you can define, which you can't, it doesn't negate the fact that most of his supporters are attracted to him because of the fantasy that most of the wars are caused by the US at our own expense, rather than the reality that most wars are contained by the USA in order to sustain a viable global economy. We make a lot of mistakes along the way, and most can be explained by compromise because of liberal dupes.

          Now talk to those donors and show me why they chose to do that. My real guess is that most of them just wanted to defeat 0'Bama, or go home from a war that in February of 2012, seemed pointless to them. They may not "Blame America" first, but blaming American leadership is almost the same thing in the context of those who are under direct orders of its Commander-in-Chief. They opposed 0'Bama and saw RP as the most viable candidate in February. Going back to that time, any analyst can see why. Heck, I might even choose RP over 0'Bama if I had believed that was viable choice. I knew that it wasn't, I just didn't know for sure who would emerge. I'm glad I didn't waste any money supporting anyone at that stage.

          In any case, a failure to admit to blatant weaknesses in a position is the sign of a polemist. You should at least admit that those who believe in "blowback" as a serious concern are those very much attracted to people like RP and 0'Bama. They believe the BS about supposed victims who don't in fact exist, and greatly exaggerate the significance – or twist the facts – when there are true victims.

          Giving in to lies is never a road to success.

  • Zipory

    It seems that all the ronbots are alive and well (unfortunately). When logic and facts are presented they do nothing other then to show their hate and disdain for all those that didn't fall for Paul's gobbledygook and fantasies.

    I wonder what' it'll take to get these people off of cloud nine and back to the world of reality? And, when will they realize that they are a minority who are brainwashed with Paul's garbage (in regards to foreign policy). Total lalah land.

    • Viet Vet

      Bigtime minority too.

  • Asher

    You know Paul is clueless, the fact that we would not support Israel puts the US in jeopardy and in danger because of the Almighty's promise to curse those who curse Israel, and bless those that bless Israel…Paul is not savvy on the workings of Islamic regimes, and terrorist organizations….just leave them alone and give them respect…yeh right…at whose expense…the Innocent People!

    • Goemon

      Ron Paul isnt asking us to curse Israhell, just not bless it so much. USA has aided it well and for this USA is blessed with Obama as prsident. Asking us to aid a country near the other side of the world surrounded by enemies whose life goal us to destroy them is unfair to USA. Let those Jews of Israel come to USA if they want our aid. Israel is too dangerous of a place and will inevitably succumb to the violent will of it's enemies.

      • usinfidel

        Israhell is pathetic mo speak. I see it in all islamic circles so kindly please gtfo

      • Mary Sue

        Why are you calling it "Israhell"? That is cursing it.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Ron Paul isnt asking us to curse Israhell…"

        Credibility rating = Zero, the same as 0'Bama, for "Goeman," and Ron Paul.

        "Israel is too dangerous of a place and will inevitably succumb to the violent will of it's enemies."

        By extension, the world is too dangerous of a place and will inevitably succumb to the violent will of its enemies. So were Germany and Japan. WWII was a big mistake, eh? We should be ruled by Nazi-Muslims by now and we'd all be living peaceful lives with our butts pointed to the god of cheese 5 times a day, never having to worry about what time to do it.

        Sounds blissful this world you've created.

      • JacksonPearson

        Those who bless Israel will be blessed, those that curse Israel will be cursed….your choice?

    • Viet Vet

      Libertarians like their close cousins Leftists, are atheists.

  • Asher

    Aid to terrorist regimes should be ended, and Israel should be supported because they are not a terrorist regime. They have been our friends and allies more than these Islamic Caliphates now forming in the Middle East. I can't believe how stupid people are who think they can coddle terrorism, and yet rebuff nations who stand for the same values as the US used to, peace, freedom, and defense. Do you really think the Muslim Brotherhood is a friend to the US…They are for the moment because we have enabled them and gave them all kind of tax payer money….Well learn the hard way…man never learns from his mistakes!

  • usinfidel

    Ron Paul and his supporters clearly DO NOT understand islam and its true teachings. The taliban aren't the "radicals" in this political ideology, they ARE the political ideology. The hate for Jews and Christians and overall all "non-believers" is very real but as long as we have the "but only if we leave them alone" mentality coming aound it continues to make our battle that much more difficult! It is apparent many continue to keep themselves in the dark while the world around us i..e. the muslim brotherhood, sharia law, continue to creep its way into our country (countries). Newsflash.. it has nothing to do with us being "over there" and everything to do with them being everywhere. It's called an islamic caliphate. Take off the rose-colored glasses and recognize the bigger picture! The narcissism of the bleeding heart apologists is going to be our nations downfall! Taqiyya indeed.

    • http://www.themadjewess.wordpress.com MAD JEWESS

      NO, most Paulans just hate Israel AND Jews.

      • usinfidel

        And my point is at least for some Paulans (who aren't muslims/reverts)… their hate would most certainly be redirected if they truly understood our enemy's intentions but they are uninformed about true islam, unfortunately, like so many. They buy into the pallywood propoganda and the whole "religion of peace" bs and view them as the underdog and oppressed. Taqiyya is a very powerful tool. In the end, those of us "in the know" realize as long as you are a "non-believing infidel" (I understand especially Christians and Jews) it will overall not matter WHAT you are apart from being muslim and sharia law is THEE main global goal. Period. We are in for the fight of our lives right now but too many are asleep.

        • Viet Vet

          Well, they are on cloud 9 (la la land) you know.

  • NAHALKIDES

    Paul's lunatic foreign policy ideas are part and parcel of Libertarianism, which is motivated at base by a desire for anarchy. Without any values to guide it, with a dedication to "liberty" without understanding what that concept means, Libertarianism has long held a view of the United States (and by extension, Israel) indistinguishable from that of the Radical Left, in fact predating the rise of Ron Paul.

    We conservatives need to make a concerted effort to convert those Libertarians who can still be reasoned with to the conservative cause, leaving the remaining rump (if the term "rump" can be applied to a party that was never politically viable) to its delusions on Cloud 9.

    • kalidestroyer

      Its unclear what "values" drive neo-conservatives such as yourself following the fall of communism. I presume you're not a paleo-conservative since this article deals with foreign policy and libertarians paleo-conservatives now support an identical agenda in that realm: a strong national defense, congressional declaration of war, no foreign aid, and, in general, non-interventionism. The intellectual leaders of the neo-consersatives were from the left who came to think that the left was becoming too alied with Russia and China and began to question the great society program of Johnson (while never questioning Roosevelt's New Deal). They thus supported the Vietnam and Cambodia Wars and most of the interventions for the next 25 years before the end of communism. Now what are the motivating values of the neo-conservatives? They have no principled opposition to the welfare state since they don't oppose the New Deal or wealth redistribution in principle. They have no principled opposition to corporate welfare and have never whimpered any dissent against what Eisenhower termed the military industrial complex. They support the war on drugs, which has led the US, supposedly the freest nation on earth, to incarcerate more people per capita than anyone on earth. They think Lincoln and Hamilton were heros and argue for a strong federal government, and have no principled against expanded federal power or reserved state power under the 10th amendment. Will neo-conservatives defend their record in Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Libya, etc or will they suggest that it's Obama's fault that those countries are utter basket cases who've gone from secular third world dictatorships to crumbling state's with more enemies and potential terrorists in their population? Neo-conservatives must defend their record (libertarians have no record, since theyve never been in power) but they also must defend their philosophy, if they have one at all.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Its unclear what "values" drive neo-conservatives such as yourself following the fall of communism"

        It's unclear to you because you've been indoctrinated by communists and never questioned those values.

        "I presume you're not a paleo-conservative since this article deals with foreign policy and libertarians paleo-conservatives now support an identical agenda in that realm: a strong national defense, congressional declaration of war, no foreign aid, and, in general, non-interventionism."

        I presume you should listen to people before assigning them to bogus thought-niches taught to you by liars who want you to avoid conversation that might lead you away from their propaganda.

        "The intellectual leaders of the neo-consersatives were from the left who came to think that the left was becoming too alied with Russia and China and began to question the great society program of Johnson (while never questioning Roosevelt's New Deal)….blah blah blah.

        That's why you never learn; you think you own both sides of the debate. Psychotic delusions.

        " Neo-conservatives must defend their record (libertarians have no record, since theyve never been in power) but they also must defend their philosophy, if they have one at all."

        You just never listened.

        • Viet Vet

          Just to let you know, this dimwit is actually not a leftist, but a Libertarian (big L). The reason you have trouble telling the difference is because there are not any big differences. I listed some of the things they share together in an earlier post of yours. I could add that they both claim that the Iraq war was all about oil. They don't believe the U.S. should have been involved in any war since the Revolution, including WWII. And if the Revolution were being fought today, they would be against it. Look at the political spectrum as a circle instead of a straight line. The constitution is at the top of the circle. Conservatives are right there on top with the Constitution. At the bottom of the circle is where you will find the far left and the far right (Libertarians/anarchists), congregated.

          • navdan

            The Constitution is a very libertarian document. If you don't understand that, you have a very limited understanding of the nature and principles behind the entire thing. I also think conservatives (except for neo-cons) are also much closer to the top of your circle than liberals will ever be.

            However, to claim that libertarians are on the direct opposite side is either a) completely and utterly disingenuous, or b) the ramblings of someone who has a total ignorance of libertarianism (or the Constitution, but I'm betting the former), and zero intellectual curiosity to actually learn about more than your incorrect, yet strongly-held convictions.

          • Viet Vet

            Yes, the Constitution is a very libertarian document. Small (l) libertariansim advocates limited government. I was talking about Libertarianism (big L), which is a horse of another color. Big L Libertarianism is analagous with anarchism. Using a 1787 analogy, Libertarians would be closer to the anti-federalists (who generally lost the debate at the Constitutional Convention), only without the Conspiracy theory and other kooky baggage. Even the ani-federalists had the gumption to fight the nation's enemies, were not atheists, or anti-Christian, or anti-religion. Nor were they pro-abortion. No one at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 believed you could do anything you wanted as long as it didn't hurt someone. They believed that the validity, the scope and the breadth of the rights/power reserved to the states or the people, which was most of the rights/power, should be determined in accordance with the collective sensibilities of the citizenry.

          • navdan

            I agree with most of what you say; My personal opinion is that you paint Libertarians to be a little farther from libertarians than is the case in realty (although, I personally consider myself a small-L libertarian, so perhaps I'm at least partially in agreement with you there, too).

            One thing that I DO believe in, though, is that I do think people should be able to do anything they want as long as they don't hurt somebody or infringe on anyone else's rights to live their life as they see fit.

            If somebody else isn't hurting you (the general "you"), any decree that that other person change their lifestyle to suit any given citizen's desires is essentially forcing them to do so at gunpoint (via threat of government force). To me, I may think somebody else's actions disgusting, repugnant, stupid, or anything. But what I think is much worse, is if I were to demand that certain somebody change their lifestyle, by force, because I don't like it.

  • SoCalMike

    I like Paul's domestic idea but his foreign policy places enemies and allies on the same moral diplomatic plane. Only an enemy could love such a stance.
    Good job, Ron!
    I guess he's just too old and confused to get his brain around the life on the ground in the ME.

    • Joel

      "his foreign policy places enemies and allies on the same moral diplomatic plane. Only an enemy could love such a stance. "

      I'm pretty sure Iraq was considered our ally while Saddam Hussein was committing atrocities against his people by gassing dissidents and committing genocide against the Kurds. So, I suppose he should have been judged by a different moral standard since he was arbitrarily deemed our ally? That's at least what it sounds like you're saying, so maybe you should clarify, because I think we should judge countries based solely on their actions and not on their current diplomatic status or their racial makeup, as I believe is partially the case with Israel.

      • Mary Sue

        He was deemed our ally because he was at war with the insane nutbar clerics of Iran. The simple "enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle. If there's one thing the world did NOT need, it was Iran taking over Iraq.

        Saddam claimed he was brutal because he had to keep a lid on the crazies. I'd hardly call the Kurds crazy though.

        Our basis for allying with Israel is simple. It's the ONLY democratic country in that region that recognizes human rights, including gay rights. If you want to side against human rights and with the extinguishment of human rights as we know them go right ahead.

      • Viet Vet

        You are very nuanced when it comes to the vagaries and apparent contradictions of World Diplmacy over a couple of decades of time aren't you. Impossible for you to be able to understand being an "ally" of Iraq when they were fighting Iran (who took our people hostage) and then Iraq and Saddam being our enemy some 22 years later. Your bewilderment of such intricate things tells me you are a Libertarian.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    While Paul is naive and gullible to the extreme, the vast overwhelming majority of Republican politicians today are also exceedingly naive and gullible where Islam is concerned as well. For instance, please explain how doing nation-building missions to democratize the Islamic world is somehow peace through strength? It's not, it's insanity as in Islam democracy (manmade laws) is an abomination that must be destroyed, as Sharia, which emanates directly from God, is perfectly just and absolutely infallible. Allowing millions of Muslims to immigrate to our country is also totally insane as well!

    • WilliamJamesWard

      It is insane and Obama leading a crazy government and people is empowering the next
      world war that will kill millions. The worst part is that so many believe that peace can be
      gained with the Islamists, it will never happen until they are destroyed and blotted out of
      the mind of man and never to be heard from again…………………….William

  • cynthia curran

    Paul's supporters are paleo cons and libertarians. Paul fiscal reform is mainly gutting defense and go back to the Gold Standard which isn't easy.

  • Alex Kovnat

    I can see a point in not getting involved in Syria. We might very well have gotten our hands bit needlessly in Iraq. But I can't see a point in abandoning Israel, or South Korea. Ron Paul goes way too far.

  • refuse2fail

    It's Mr. Tapson who has the delusions here. WAKE UP!

    • Mary Sue

      what exactly has he delusions about?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "what exactly has he delusions about?"

        "refuse2fail" has delusions that Ron Paul's narratives, which defy actual or factual world history of the past 100 years, is the correct one. Therefore objective facts and logical conclusions based on those facts will disorient him. He then projects this confusion on to what he perceives the source of confusion to be.

        That is the world one risks living in when one is taught that there are no objective truths.

  • Jim_C

    Hypothetically speaking, is there something to be said for abandoning all foreign aid to the ME, including Israel? Would this not mean that Israel could finally act in its own interests without our approbation? Maybe speed things along?

    The whole point of our aid to all of these countries was to encourage stability; ultimately, to make sure the oil keeps flowing, and if in the meantime our allies can defend themselves, and people are able to start and grow businesses, then great.

    Seems like we're in a position at home where we could use to concentrate on domestic affairs.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Hypothetically speaking, is there something to be said for abandoning all foreign aid to the ME, including Israel? Would this not mean that Israel could finally act in its own interests without our approbation? Maybe speed things along?"

      Speed things along like global sharia?

      Sure. Let them have the region as a base to finish off Africa before finishing of Europe, including the final phase of destroying Russia. The whole time they'll continue all the same fantastic lies about the religion of peace and how they only want justice and resolution for grievances. Nothing will change from today, other than the gradual destruction of the West in Europe, then at some point in the next 10 to 2 years they'll warn us to convert to Islam or face the nuclear sword.

      "The whole point of our aid to all of these countries was to encourage stability; ultimately, to make sure the oil keeps flowing, and if in the meantime our allies can defend themselves, and people are able to start and grow businesses, then great."

      Yes, the Muslim Brotherhood wants just what we want, only they want to get rid of neo-colonial dominance of all that aid we give them, and other "grievances." They're rational to you because well, neither of you are.

      "Seems like we're in a position at home where we could use to concentrate on domestic affairs."

      Sounds like a grand plan, to one who worships the god of cheese. This plan exists in reality in the offices around the world run by the Muslim Brotherhood. And it's not like we have some interdependent global economy to worry about or weapons that can be used to attack entire cities packed in a suitcase.

      Isolationists today are even more stupid than before because the facts against them keep growing in number and more blatantly against their delusions.

      You're a hopeless dupe.

      • Viet Vet

        It's all about the 'flow of oil' don't you know…lol.

        • Jim_C

          Yes, "LOL." It's been about "freedom and democracy," right?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The flow of oil does not have to be incompatible with freedom and democracy. The regime we empowered is the cause of these conflicts, not the oil itself or even our use of it, except when we continue to make that regime stronger.

          • Viet Vet

            Yes. If I was a kook, I'd think it was about oil.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Oil is part of the history of the problems, but it doesn't have to be that way. We have many other options to the present arrangements. Keeping it flowing as an objective is not wrong. We've failed in allowing the funds paid for oil to corrupt the UN and many world governments and politicians.

          We have many choices for the future, and many examples about bad choices we've made in the past. Our only hope is to learn those lessons, and then build consensus on what truly will solve those problems.

      • Jim_C

        "Speed things along" as in "allow Israel to defend itself to the fullest degree without having to heed our call for restraint."

        As far as my point about foreign aid, don't blame the messenger: it's been our foreign policy for 40 years.

        Stopping foreign aid to the ME isn't "isolationism" by any stretch or definition. Just a suggestion: read carefully before posting and make no assumptions, if objective facts do indeed matter to you.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Speed things along" as in "allow Israel to defend itself to the fullest degree without having to heed our call for restraint."

          That is correct. We've only hurt our declared values when we've restrained them or failed to support them strongly enough.

          "Stopping foreign aid to the ME isn't "isolationism" by any stretch or definition."

          If you think of isolationism as merely physical and in your mind we keep our warships and facilities in place while only withdrawing funding, you're wrong about what isolates nations. We've set an expectation, and to simply stop funding anything will have consequences. With no other factors, that would be withdrawing influence, without question. Our money always comes with strings attached, legitimate or not.

          "Just a suggestion: read carefully before posting and make no assumptions, if objective facts do indeed matter to you."

          Don't conflate facts with opinions. The fact is that you have an opinion and I didn't successfully read your mind. Sorry. I also disagree with you about the results of your suggestions.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Stopping foreign aid to the ME isn't "isolationism" by any stretch or definition. Just a suggestion: read carefully before posting and make no assumptions, if objective facts do indeed matter to you."

          And by the way, I don't advocate business as usual. I'd like to see a change in policy where our execution lives up to our ideals. Funding should have strong strings attached with consequences for those who fail. See the PA, Egypt, Iraq, etc. for examples of failures on our part to leverage our investments in the ME. Withdraw completely? I might agree with you if you had a comprehensive objective-based phased plan. If you mean cold turkey, then you don't understand what's going on.

          • Jim_C

            That is why I made a point of saying "hypothetically speaking." I wanted to hear from someone who could draw out what happens if aid is simply withdrawn, as some here call for. I understand it is there for stability, and in the case of Israel–strategy, as well.

            Certainly I agree with your point about aid and its strings attached. I would not advocate a total drawdown of our forces. Obviously I would not have invaded Iraq–but I always say it was not the stupidest thing I ever heard, either. I still think it was poorly conceived initially. That said, I think we've gained a lot of useful experience and intel through it. Not sure if it's worth the blood and treasure, but I think it has had its benefits after deposing Saddam.

            Afghanistan: I like it as a Special Forces playground. But reforming it and being its ersatz police force is folly.

            If all out war comes some day I prefer to fight a nation or quasi-national force, rather than play whack a mole and hide and seek. But that latter tactic is useful when hunting terrorists/militants.

  • cynthia curran

    Ron Paul reads Spotlight a publication that states the Jews are the biggest enemy out there. The radical right that Paul represents has always dislke the Jews and believe them on everything. Paul is right on gutting aid to egyant though.

    • http://www.themadjewess.wordpress.com MAD JEWESS

      It is not the 'radical right' that is the enemy of the Jew, it is libertarians that left the Commie-dems.
      the only Jew hatred is coming from the far left.

      • Viet Vet

        Libertarians (big L) are Far Right, or Radical Right if you prefer, and yes they are anti-Semites as well as their close cousins the Leftists.

    • Mary Sue

      there's very little of this that is actual right wingers doing this. Many of them are "Libertarian" that are in fact leftists of a sort.

      • navdan

        I think that broad characterization of what you think a Libertarian is just makes it easy to dismiss all their opinions so you don't have to go through the mental rigor of considering any of their points.

        I'm a Constitutionalist and libertarian. I've sworn an oath to the Constitution multiple times throughout 11 years of service; as a political science major (as useless as that can be practically), I spent plenty of time considering foreign relations.

        I'm certainly – and I can guarantee this to you – not a leftist of any sort.

        Keeping government within the strict confines of the Constitution IS essentially libertarian. I don't think the government has any right to tell people how to live their lives, either socially or economically. I'm strongly pro-gun, and also believe that no one has the right to tell a drug addict how to live his or her miserable life (that's the job of their friends/family/community/church — not mine or yours). I also don't think that citizens should have to fund outrageously extra-Constitutional endeavors with their own taxes.

        THAT is the mindset of many libertarians. It's not a bunch of mindless leftists — it's simply people whose beliefs stem from the idea that every individual has the right to live his or her life however they see fit, as long as it doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights to do the same.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "I think that broad characterization of what you think a Libertarian is just makes it easy to dismiss all their opinions so you don't have to go through the mental rigor of considering any of their points."

          Really? This, "Many of them are "Libertarian" that are in fact leftists of a sort." How is that dismissive? Talk about those who aren't but don't blame her because labels are so misleading, pretty much all of them.

          "I'm a Constitutionalist and libertarian."

          Great. How do you define libertarian?

          "I've sworn an oath to the Constitution multiple times throughout 11 years of service;"

          Great!

          "as a political science major"

          Great?

          "(as useless as that can be practically), I spent plenty of time considering foreign relations."

          OK. Do you like ice cream?

          "I'm certainly – and I can guarantee this to you – not a leftist of any sort."

          Who said you were?

          "Keeping government within the strict confines of the Constitution IS essentially libertarian."

          So in your mind, a libertarian and a conservative are really identical. Fair enough. I'll try to remember your personal labeling scheme.

          "I don't think the government has any right to tell people how to live their lives, either socially or economically. I'm strongly pro-gun, and also believe that no one has the right to tell a drug addict how to live his or her miserable life (that's the job of their friends/family/community/church — not mine or yours). I also don't think that citizens should have to fund outrageously extra-Constitutional endeavors with their own taxes. "

          Don't call yourself a conservative for any reason. Libertarian is so much sexier.

          "THAT is the mindset of many libertarians."

          I'm sure that's true.

          "it's simply people whose beliefs stem from the idea that every individual has the right to live his or her life however they see fit, as long as it doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights to do the same"

          It's simply to you, "…people whose beliefs stem from the idea that every individual has the right to live his or her life however they see fit, as long as it doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights to do the same."

          Still, she's right; many who call themselves libertarians are aligned with leftists tactically if not strategically. It makes no rational sense, but neither do the liberals. I think what happens is that conservatives are made to seem even more scary because many of them believe in God, and thus take radical liberty limiting positions. The liberals convinced those libertarians that they really want liberty too. The details of course make the two totally in conflict in theory, but what can we say? We're observing people and their positions. We're not vouching for their sanity or rational senses.

          Look, I'm sorry someone stole your label. Your definition is closer to the origins of its use, but at the same time we're having a discussion also about what people see themselves as, and how they behave. We're not vouching for the correctness of their beliefs.

          • navdan

            I see your point, and I appreciate that you – in a lucid and rational way – highlighted where the disagreements on this post are coming from. I don't think many people are doing that quite as well.

            As far as some of your quotes of my comment, in general what I was doing initially was trying to convey that I'm not some mindless fool (like is being assumed about anyone who calls themselves a libertarian in the comment board), and that I have some views that would be traditionally called conservative, and others that would traditionally be called liberal (trying to convey to some people that saying all libertarians are simply "leftist" isn't true).

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I see your point, and I appreciate that you – in a lucid and rational way – highlighted where the disagreements on this post are coming from. I don't think many people are doing that quite as well."

            True, but reading in to that might be a mistake. Culturally, we Americans don't often take the time to try to be understood by those who don't already agree with us.

            "As far as some of your quotes of my comment, in general what I was doing initially was trying to convey that I'm not some mindless fool (like is being assumed about anyone who calls themselves a libertarian in the comment board), and that I have some views that would be traditionally called conservative, and others that would traditionally be called liberal (trying to convey to some people that saying all libertarians are simply "leftist" isn't true)."

            I think your comments would be welcomed and appreciated even more once you take a few more moments to qualify your statements. No harm done because it just took a little more time this way and we all got to know you a little better too.

        • Omar

          Constitutionalists and libertarians do not export Stalinist/Maoist propaganda the way you do.

        • Mary Sue

          I've run into a LOT of "Libertarians" that are leftist to some degree. Most of them socially but some both socially and economically. Makes me wonder why they are not flat out Democrats.

          I do know a few Libertarians, on the other hand that could be considered "right wing".

          The problem comes when an ideology rears its head (Islamism) and "libertarians" fail to nip it in the bud because of some nebulous duty to ignore everything that isn't an "immediate" threat. That's sort of like waiting to exterminate termites from your house until you actually see the buggers…and by then your house is sawdust.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Paul is right on gutting aid to egyant though."

      His theories are absurd, even if a few line items are tactically sound, had they been presented under a different theory.

      • WilliamJamesWard

        I am amazed that people think we can close the doors and be left in peace. Islam is here
        and growing by leftist enablement, out tax dollars are supporting the colinizers that one day
        will be doing just what they are doing in Europe and the rest of the world. It is better to
        confront the issue now before Obama has us all bent over prayer rugs being done like
        dogs………………………William

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "I am amazed that people think we can close the doors and be left in peace. Islam is here
          and growing by leftist enablement, "

          Even before we realized how serious the Muslim Brotherhood is, we knew that global security concerns would only be increased as weapons effectiveness increased. National borders are clearly not the last word in defense, and what about our globally interdependent economy?

          I'm not trying to justify tyranny, We have obligations to be just. Running and hiding for a while on a large mass of land doesn't serve anyone's interests at all.

          "out tax dollars are supporting the colinizers that one day
          will be doing just what they are doing in Europe and the rest of the world. It is better to
          confront the issue now before Obama has us all bent over prayer rugs being done like
          dogs"

          Even if we wake up and kill them before then, why suffer to appease a bunch of psychotic murdering liars? Let's minimize the pain and do what needs to be done.

  • Ghostwriter

    To me,Ron Paul doesn't care about Jewish people or Israel. He's living in a fantasy world,the same as President Obama. They believe if we leave our enemies alone,they'll leave us alone. Unfortunately,that doesn't happen in the real world. We need leaders who live in the real world,not fictional ones like Ron Paul and President Obama.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "To me,Ron Paul doesn't care about Jewish people or Israel. He's living in a fantasy world,the same as President Obama. They believe if we leave our enemies alone,they'll leave us alone. "

      It's almost impossible for me to believe that any person could actually believe these idiotic delusions without some serious self-interest (and by that I really mean acute narcissism) to help their fantasies along.

      "We need leaders who live in the real world,not fictional ones like Ron Paul and President Obama."

      Theoretically, that should be the price of support from any American political party. It's not and that's truly sad.

    • Jim_C

      President Obama provides Israel with money. President Obama provides Israel with weaponry. President Obama provides Israel with intelligence support and tech support, and if you can name any country that receives a greater level of support than that from us, please do so.

      These are facts, and while I'm sure someone at FPM will write an article about Obama's "body language" and observe that he "didn't smile at Bibi!" or something equally nitwit, nothing can change those facts. Objective facts matter.

      Ron Paul would like for those things above not to happen.

      They are not two peas in a pod.

      • Ghostwriter

        Jim_C,I don't know what world you're living in but it sure ain't ours. Obama doesn't really care about Israel all that much. His statement to the French President has made it abundantly clear. If he did care about Israel,he would do all he would do to let them defend themselves against Hamas. He won't do that. I'm sorry to tell you this but that's the truth in a nutshell.

        • Jim_C

          I personally like what I know of Bibi, but even among his own, there are those who don't care for him. That doesn't make them, or Obama, anti-Israel. Relationships are always a two-way street and there are plenty of Israel supporters who believe Bibi has undercut/misled the president in several instances.

          As for letting them do what they want to defend against Hamas, Obama's policy is no different than any U.S. president's in 30 years. Our aid comes with expectations of restraint. That may NOT be right–but like I said, it's consistent.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "President Obama provides Israel with money."

        0'Bama could not find a stealthy politically acceptable way to harm Israel even further than he has.

        "President Obama provides Israel with weaponry. President Obama provides Israel with intelligence support and tech support, and if you can name any country that receives a greater level of support than that from us, please do so."

        Don't conflate an evil corrupt politician with the actions of a nation he is supposed to lead, or the actions that nation was already committed to.

        "These are facts, and while I'm sure someone at FPM will write an article about Obama's "body language" and observe that he "didn't smile at Bibi!"

        While speeches and their content are less important facts than your citations? I don't think so given that political decisions have velocity and inertia that often exceed the term of office. In other words, 0'Bama must follow some of the decisions due to that inertia. We can observe the motives and effects of a politician according to what he says and the changes made during his watch, while you point to credit you give him for things he had no choice but to tolerate. That's a simple view that doesn't really help us discover relevant facts. It's an effective way to hide from unpleasant facts. Just look at any set of facts and exclude every aspect that doesn't fit your preset analysis.

        Objective facts matter, and so do saliency and logical analysis. That username was already taken.

        • Jim_C

          You say he "tolerated" these things, but your evidence of this is gut feeling. "Evil" and "corrupt" require some evidence, no? But they merely signify personal distaste rather than logic.

          I see no evidence that Obama's support for Israel is going to change significantly. So what we're left with, here, is conservatives trying to foist anti-Israeli sentiment on a president whose actions have been anything but anti-Israel. Even if it is true on some level, he wouldn't be the first leader to have to deal with another leader he didn't like. (FDR/Churchill/Stalin, anyone? That's not an analogy, btw–I like Bibi quite a bit–just a demonstration). I'm sorry, your analysis just doesn't hold water, it's mere impressionism.

  • Taimy

    Why Israel needs to exist as a "must"? If it can't exist in its UN assigned borders, then fake off! Go back to where you came from! It is clear Israel is cause of this conflict, as it wants to grab more land than it is assigned (even that land originally belonged to Arabs).

    • JoJoJams

      Hey Knucklhead ~ You do realize that ALL the surrounding arab nations were themselves created after the fall of the Ottoman empire, don't you? And Israel finally was given a small sliver of the land originally intended for them. The invading arabs need to go BACK to where THEY came from! Or at the least, learn to live alongside their "brother" in Abraham – but they won't/can't – because they made up religion itself condemns jews, as well as demands that all lands that were once muslim are always muslim and needs to be retaken. THAT is why there is no peace! If the invading arabs ("palestinians") put down their weapons today, there would be peace. If the Israeli's put down their weapons, there would be no more Israel or Jews in the region.

    • JoJoJams

      And by the way…..any land the arabs LOST after attacking Israel many times, is, per the rules of war since the dawn of mankind, LOST to them! You attack someone, then lose land, that land is no longer yours. That's how it works – so YOU can go fake-off. Israel even gave the Sinai back to Egypt!! And they've pulled out of Gaza YEARS now! And STILL you sick arab invaders want more! Taimy – you are following a death-cult of lies.

    • Mary Sue

      UN shouldn't be assigning anything, the whole organization is full of antisemites.

      None of that land "originally" belonged to the Arabs. It all belonged to the Jews.

      Do you have a problem with a state existing that grants human rights, particularly GAY rights?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Why Israel needs to exist as a "must"?"

      It's the West's most important damn in the river of sharia, trying to flood the world.

      "If it can't exist in its UN assigned borders, then fake off! "

      The UN is virtually owned by the OIC, which has global sharia as its goal. How uninformed you are. Perhaps you should spend your time "faking off" yourself and that alone will help the world more than you are otherwise capable of doing.

      "Go back to where you came from! "

      OK. Can I interview your family and read them your policy?

      "It is clear Israel is cause of this conflict"

      100% false. You're a dupe or a liar.

      "as it wants to grab more land than it is assigned"

      False in more ways than one.

      "(even that land originally belonged to Arabs)."

      Also false. There is no land owned by Arabs not taken by coercion directly or by their ancestors. They sure know how to lie about it because it's literally part of their religion to do so. The question is today, why are you helping spread these lies?

      If it can't exist in its UN assigned borders, then fake off!

    • Ghostwriter

      You're just another vile anti-semite,Taimy.

    • Omar

      Taimy, quit exporting Islamist propaganda. Jews have lived continuously in the Holy Land for over 3000 years. Palestine is a geographical region, not an ethnicity. Palestine is not even an Arabic name. Palestine is a Latin name meaning Philistines, who were Greek sailors who had red hair (the Philistines were not Arabs). The Romans conquered the Holy Land region in 66 AD/CE almost 600 years before Islam was established and the Arabs started moving into the area. There were two partitions of the Palestine Mandate: after World War I, in which the British created the Kingdom of Transjordan (now Jordan) for the Hashemites; and after World War II, when the United Nations partitioned the remaining Mandate into a Jewish state and another Arab state. The Jews accepted the partition, established modern Israel within the partitioned boundaries, and sought to make peace with the Arabs. But the Arab states decided to launch a war of destruction against Israel on the day of its modern creation. Israel had no choice but to fight back against the invaders, which it did and it won. For over 6 decades, Israel has had to defend itself against enemies who want to destroy the Jewish state. While Israel wants peace, democracy and freedom, Hamas, Hezbollah and their Islamist allies want totalitarianism and oppression. That's the reality.

  • Kalidestroyer

    Most of the Anti-Paul comments are simply ad-hominem attacks on the man, not his ideas. Either suggesting that he is positively delusional, "anti-American", or dangerously naive adds nothing to the conversation about what the U.S. foreign policy ought to be going forward. On that score, we need to look at U.S. history including our recent history so that we might agree on some basic set of facts so that consider alternative policy choices. We need to look at direct US military involvement in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Gulf War I, Somalia, Bosnia, Serbia, Sudan, Gulf War II, and Afghanistan, . We also need to look US indirect military involvement in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba, Columbia, Chile, Iran (before 1979), Iraq (before 1990). Also military and economic aid to countries too numerous to mention needs to be examined. All the direct costs of these adventures (economic and human) as well as indirect opportunity costs (how many railways, hospitals, roads, bridges, college tuitions, and debt payments could have been paid without the above spending). Also the effect of any of the above actions (both direct and indirect) have had in causing "blowback" (a term coined by the CIA) must be considered. Literally trillions have been spent. Since the WWII, the US has never been threatened with a (non-terrorist) attack. What could those trillions have been spent on? This assumes no cut "defense spending" (indeed there would be no replacement costs of munitions used if the munitions were never used or destroyed), it assumes only that no supplemental Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan monies would be used. I think when the costs are looked at in this serious way without emotional talk (from either side about "American Greatness", "power vacuums", "good vs. evil", "war crimes", etc) we'll be able to talk with eachother and really see how much our policies are benefiting the average citizen who neither serves in the military, has a defense contract, has a particular interest in foreign policy, or makes his living by giving foreign policy advice (which tends to be weighted more if action vs. non-action is advised).

    • JoJoJams

      Ummmm. So, you completely ignore "the cold war", which was at the root of most of what you've mentioned. Do you really believe the world would be a better place, had we just let the USSR run roughshod over the world, over-throwing governments and instilling communism thorughout? Do you really believe that had we pulled back to only "defense" of ourselves, that the block of communist nations the USSR would have set up would just have left us alone? Do you really believe that "the average citizen" would even be alive and well, had we NOT fought the cold war? Sure. That's why the USSR tested us with missiles in Cuba – because they were so benevalent…. *sigh* Paulbots=naive when it comes to foreign policy.

      • navdan

        U.S. overthrowing governments = good, and USSR overthrowing governments = bad?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "U.S. overthrowing governments = good, and USSR overthrowing governments = bad?"

          Most of the time, this statement is correct.

          • navdan

            Worked out pretty well in the long run after overthrowing the Shah in Iran in '53…no long-term unintended consequences of that.
            Bay of Pigs worked out pretty well, too.
            Or overthrowing South Vietnam's Ngo Dinh Diem…although that really concerned Ho Chi Minh (who, of the incident, reportedly said "I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid.").
            Overthrowing Salvador Allende only led to a few years of dictatorship under Pinochet.
            Supporting and financing the Mujahideen in Afghanistan didn't have any long-term consequences either…
            Attempting to overthrowing the Sandinistas in Nicaragua didn't pose any issues later on.

            And none of this even addresses the issue of the morality of trying to control or undermine governments and countries around the world.

            But, that's part of the reason we continue to have long-term conflicts and issues…few people really care to think about long-term consequences of actions, and feel themselves fit to determine how other societies should exist.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Worked out pretty well in the long run after overthrowing the Shah in Iran in '53…no long-term unintended consequences of that. "

            That depends on who you ask.

            "Bay of Pigs worked out pretty well, too."

            Nope, that was a failure, but not immoral to try. It was executed very poorly.

            "Or overthrowing South Vietnam's Ngo Dinh Diem…although that really concerned Ho Chi Minh (who, of the incident, reportedly said "I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid.")."

            He was referring to the "peace movement" which is the problem with virtually every foreign policy problem we've had since the Soviets penetrated our government and schools, not to mention screwing up your education.

            "Overthrowing Salvador Allende only led to a few years of dictatorship under Pinochet.
            Supporting and financing the Mujahideen in Afghanistan didn't have any long-term consequences either…"

            Let's go back to the original statement.

            You said: "U.S. overthrowing governments = good, and USSR overthrowing governments = bad?"

            …and I replied:

            'Most of the time, this statement is correct.'

            You've obviously oversimplified with your statement but then you want to pull out exceptions or consequences which were not part of your original implication that there was some kind of moral equivalence between the USA and the USSR. I am pointing out that there is a distinction between the strategic goals of the Communists and what were once the strategic goals of the USA. Of course now that Mr. 0'Bama has that flexibility, Russia and the USA can go after the same objectives. But during the cold war between the USSR and the USA, the Soviets were generally bad and we were good. That doesn't mean we didn't make mistakes.

            If you want a nuanced discussion, don' t make sarcastic question-statements like, "U.S. overthrowing governments = good, and USSR overthrowing governments = bad?"

            Do you want a nuanced discussion or not? Signs say no. You want to use tired "counterpoints" that don't really make sense in the context you're using them, even if there is a legitimate discussion to be had in some cases.

            Don't conflate illustrations with facts or evidence when you haven't even presented an opening remark for whatever your point will eventually be, if you make one at all.

            "few people really care to think about long-term consequences of actions, and feel themselves fit to determine how other societies should exist."

            Your theory is that I'm a control freak. OK then. That's what a liberal arts education does to the mind today. It's more along the lines of it's probably over your head or you wouldn't quote such silly examples of what, evidence the US is evil, or that Ron Paul is really awesome and smart?

            I read the rest of your rant and unless you try to make a point, I don't see any value in a reply yet, if ever. If you want to revisit any of it with a position that you can explain rationally, go for it. I'm all ears.

          • navdan

            First, again, thanks for the very well thought-out and educated response. You have a lot of valid points in response to mine. And yes, my theory WAS that you were "a control freak" (although I probably wouldn't have put it in those terms…)

            Still, I don't think I'd call it a rant without any point. I still think having a government that's continually interfering with other nations' leadership (and showing examples of that) isn't completely irrelevant.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Still, I don't think I'd call it a rant without any point. I still think having a government that's continually interfering with other nations' leadership"

            That's motive.

            "(and showing examples of that) isn't completely irrelevant."

            I'm not objecting to the fact that you used examples, just that in context it wasn't as useful as it could be.

            When it comes to politics, we're taught that failure means we should never have tried. Why? Because the teachers evidently don't want you to think too much about what is right. Just withdraw. Could we have done better? There is no question in anyone's mind about that, that mistakes were made. We disagree over what to conclude from that reality.

            Food for thought:

            Technology has made sovereignty even more important than ever. As weapons get more powerful and extend their reach, the world may not shrink physically, but the reach of an enemy grows. In a political sense then, the world is shrinking. There is no place far enough away for a dangerous enemy to be rendered harmless by that distance.

            Second, it's not a simple matter of sitting home with finger on the trigger. The payoff of this military hegemony is cultural influence and trade. As long as those are benign or helpful, and welcomed to all but our bitter enemies who wants to destroy us in spite of our endless loving outreach, how is cultural influence and trade harmful if done with accountability to the laws of our constitution? All of the complaints originate from 2 sources: Islamic and Communist. They are bitter, entrenched and hateful enemies of the West and capitalism.

            Once you acknowledge this, you're free to come up with pros and cons about this and that. But if you ignore these very serious root concerns, a lot of what you say will seem like the delusion of someone who is willfully ignoring these grave dangers.

            You're welcome to the discussion any time. I'm actually an idealist who also has an acute awareness of reality. I enjoy hearing the benign or helpful ideas that come from anyone. As soon as dangerous realities are ignored, I start to sound to them like a conservative, which in practice might be true some of the time.

            Some day I might be able to reveal publicly what I'm doing this year. My actions are mostly driven by my ideals, but most of the problems today are caused by flawed leftist thinking, so my rhetoric is mostly aligned with conservative positions.

          • navdan

            And about "what a liberal arts education does to the mind today"…while it's true, that my undergrad WAS a liberal arts education (as a bachelors of science, with heavy math and engineering), my military training is in nuclear engineering with my other degree in engineering. So…I'm not quite hopelessly bogged in what you assume to be the state of all liberal arts education.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "And about "what a liberal arts education does to the mind today"…while it's true, that my undergrad WAS a liberal arts education"

            Well then…

            " (as a bachelors of science, with heavy math and engineering), my military training is in nuclear engineering with my other degree in engineering. So…I'm not quite hopelessly bogged in what you assume to be the state of all liberal arts education."

            It's not an insult, but an explanation as to the orientation of certain "worldviews" that permeate your presentation of your views and concerns.

          • Mary Sue

            all of those things were done half-assed.

          • Omar

            Navdan, quit being a supporter of Stalinism/Maoism. What about the Soviet-backed coup that overthrew Edvard Benes in Czechoslovakia in 1948? What about the Soviet take-over in Eastern Europe after World War II. What about the Soviet-backed forces that established Communist China in 1949? What about China's illegal annexation of Tibet in 1950? What about the Soviet-backed coup that put Gamel Abdel Naser to power in Egypt during the 1950s? What about the Soviet/Communist/KGB-backed coups/ in Syria (1963 and 1966), in Peru in 1968, in Libya in 1969, Vietnam and Cambodia in the 1970s, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia and other countries in Africa in the 1970s, Grenada and Afghanistan in 1979, Suriname in 1980, Saddam's Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008. How about the Cuban and Venezuelan governments' constant meddling in Puerto Rico's internal politics? The U.S. territory doesn't want secession. If anything, PR wants statehood (becoming the 51st state). What about the KGB's plot to overthrow Mohammed Daoud Khan in Afghanistan in 1978? I bet you support all of the above because you are an America-hating, democracy-hating, totalitarian-loving Stalinist/Maoist. Learn from facts instead of Communist propaganda.

          • navdan

            *sigh*

            You name a lot of Soviet-backed coups, and while that is a very valid point to suggest that U.S.-backed coups were a legitimate means of national defense, that's not exactly the point you made. To me, it seems like the point you make is "those guys did something, so it's okay if we do it back." Maybe I misunderstand you, but I still don't think that makes it legitimate to have our country – one that is supposed to be the bastion of freedom and liberty – subverting governments of foreign countries around the world.

            More than that, you think you have some idea of who I am. A Stalinism/Maoism supporter? I've been in the military for over 11 years, and would keep a pocket Constitution in my back pocket routinely (and when a political conversation came up, or the opportunity to discuss what the Oath of Office or its implications meant, it made a pretty handy reference).

            And every one of my beliefs (that generally coincides with maximum personal liberties for everyone) is directly in contradiction with your ridiculous assertion of me being a "totalitarian-loving Stalinist/Maoist."

            That's all besides the absolute absurdity of your "America-hating" nonsense, as well.

            You're obviously informed of many historical issues, which suggests that you have a much higher capability than to just read something I wrote, disagree with it, and make completely incorrect assumptions about my core beliefs and character.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "More than that, you think you have some idea of who I am. A Stalinism/Maoism supporter? I've been in the military for over 11 years, and would keep a pocket Constitution in my back pocket routinely (and when a political conversation came up, or the opportunity to discuss what the Oath of Office or its implications meant, it made a pretty handy reference)"

            I think some times we fail to articulate clearly. I could be wrong, but I think he meant that the implications of your defense were to elevate the USSR to morally equal to the USA. After reading more what you wrote, I see you wanted to give counter-examples to show the complexity of foreign policy, but you didn't establish your position and perhaps you are not aware that many, many people use the same quotes to make the argument that the USSR was perhaps even a victim of the USA during the cold war.

            It's the nature of the web that often assumptions are made on all sides before the conversation is fully formed. I think it's very important to reach across to people of different views to teach each other how to deal effectively with the rhetoric of our enemies. This conversation did help achieve that and I see you are a friend of the USA and hopefully will contribute more along the lines of learning how to reach those who help enemies of the West, helping them to wake up.

          • navdan

            With the post above (regarding the reach of the world's enemies becoming greater), you make valid points. I did intentionally focus on many of the failures, not to suggest that there weren't better ways to do it, though. I still think that there are multiple instances where, regardless of the thoroughness and effectiveness of the plan, or how well it's executed, there will always be unintended consequences and the possibility of overreach into other countries.

            I still think the U.S. too eagerly steps into other countries' sovereignty, but again, you make compelling arguments suggesting that given the nature of international relations and conflict today, those types of efforts could potentially be argued to be very much necessary in terms of national security, and a boon to nations that legitimately want our efforts.

            There's certainly things I still don't see eye to eye on, but this is the kind of reasonable, factually-based dialogue that makes it so I (and hopefully other people) always take the chance to step outside of my initial presumptions, consider that there are thoughtful reasons why other people have their opinions (which is difficult to do when the countering opposition is laced with knuckle-dragging epithets and vindictive, spiteful presumptions — which some folks of every side take part in), and come to an opinion that can at least be broadened, if not changed outright.

          • Omar

            The U.S. doesn't eagerly step into other countries' sovereignty. Russia and China do that. During the Soviet years, Moscow intervened in the Baltic states (and forcefully annexed them) and all of Eastern Europe. The USSR controlled all of Eastern Europe (except for Greece), Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Grenada, Syria, Libya, Egypt under Naser, the "Palestine" Liberation Organization, Peru, Suriname, Angola, Iraq, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and other places. China forcefully annexed Tibet (which was a sovereign country) in 1950. Iraq tried to forcefully annex Kuwait in 1990. Since 1959, the Castro regime in Cuba has tried to destroy the United States at least twice. Along with the Chavez autocracy in Venezuela, the Castro dictatorship in Cuba has been openly funding and supporting Communist and other far-left secessionists in Puerto Rico (which is a U.S. territory), despite the fact that a majority of Puerto Ricans do not want secession. In fact, a majority of islanders want either statehood (becoming America's 51st state, which I support along with more than half of the island's population) or remaining a territory (Commonwealth). If you want to talk about stepping into other countries' sovereignty, look what the Cuban and Venezuelan governments are doing in Puerto Rico (which is part of the United States). Look what Russia did in Georgia in 2008 when Moscow forcibly had Abkhazia and South Ossetia secede from Georgia. Those two entities are now Russian client states. Look what China did in Tibet (that was a forceful annexation). Look what Saddam's Iraq tried to do to Kuwait over 20 years ago. Look what the totalitarian countries did when they intervened in Spain during the Spanish Civil War. But of course, you don't criticize America's enemies because you support them. It is very typical for Stalinists and Maoists to criticize America and the West while hailing two Communist regimes that committed more atrocities than Nazi Germany.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The U.S. doesn't eagerly step into other countries' sovereignty. Russia and China do that. During the Soviet years, Moscow intervened in the Baltic states (and forcefully annexed them) and all of Eastern Europe. The USSR controlled all of Eastern Europe (except for Greece), Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Grenada, Syria, Libya, Egypt under Naser, the "Palestine" Liberation Organization, Peru, Suriname, Angola, Iraq, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and other places. China forcefully annexed Tibet (which was a sovereign country) in 1950. Iraq tried to forcefully annex Kuwait in 1990. Since 1959, the Castro regime in Cuba has tried to destroy the United States at least twice. Along with the Chavez autocracy in Venezuela, the Castro dictatorship in Cuba has been openly funding and supporting Communist and other far-left secessionists in Puerto Rico (which is a U.S. territory), despite the fact that a majority of Puerto Ricans do not want secession. In fact, a majority of islanders want either statehood (becoming America's 51st state, which I support along with more than half of the island's population) or remaining a territory (Commonwealth)."

            It's impossible for me to imagine Truman acting as he did if this Communist aggression hadn't cause him to, not to mention the broad support he got from everyone but those we later found out to be under direct Communist influence or outright control.

            I'm not judging the character of anyone from that time. But I also think it's absurd to fail to learn from the facts of history that are well-known today in 2012. Many people were duped then. Not many woke up. Many people continue to be duped by the inertia and remains of Communist propaganda, and by the Islamic imperialists who were well-schooled by the Soviets in propaganda and modern terror tactics against the West.

          • Viet Vet

            Yes, the Shah of Iran was a good friend and a stable Iran right up until Jimmah Kaatah allowed the Shah to be deposed.

            The Bay of Pigs would have been great, except that JFK got cold feet and stopped it right in the middle of it, condemning the first wave of Cubans to execution and imprisonment by Castro.

            Yes, our involvement in South Viet Nam was a very noble endeavor. It ended with a free South Viet Nam with the Paris Peace Accords in 1973. Then democrap treachery lost it all in 1975 with the invasion of the North. Who Lost? The South Vietnamese people of course. They could have had all the amenities, freedom of religion, civil rights, good economy, etc., as the South Koreans have been able to enjoy all these decades.

            Yes, Pinocet was far better than Allende.

          • Viet Vet

            And of course keeping the Soviet from taking over Afghanistan was important. At that time the Mujahideen were of no notable consequence. At that time we didn't even know of bin Laden, but that is neither here nor there, unless you are insinuating that because we assisted the Mujahideen in thwarting the USSR, caused them to somehow hate us for it and later attack us. If you believe that then it goes along way in explaining why Libertarians have no understanding of Islamofascism and its danger to our liberty.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "And of course keeping the Soviet from taking over Afghanistan was important. At that time the Mujahideen were of no notable consequence. At that time we didn't even know of bin Laden, but that is neither here nor there, "

            I think it's cute to take the facts about the Carter initiated and Reagan continued program in Afghanistan and then draw a line through the Clinton years as if Reagan created the enemy that attacked on September 11, 2001.

            Let's check the records of all criminals, and anyone who historically did anything aligned with their interests will now be considered guilty, IF the accused conspirator is conservative or even worse, a registered Republican Party member.

          • Viet Vet

            We did overthrow the Sandinistas, via the Contra freedom fighters. this was another attempt by the USSR to plant communism in our back yard. And Mr Reagan was determined to prevent that. The democraps supported the Communist Sandinistas, led by Daniel Ortega. Ortega had imprisoned Catholic Priests and murdered Catholic Nuns, he had also shut down all private radio and tv stations. The Sandinistas were being funded and armed by the Soviet Union, and when this finally became known, even the democraps were forced to drop their support for Ortega. Mr Reagan's determination paid off and forced free elections in Nicaragua, in which the people threw the Sandinistas out. That they returned to power a few years ago, is neither here nor there.

            But thank you for illustrating to all those people who will peruse your post, better than I could, just how perverse Libertarian thinking is. This is Libertarianism folks. They are KOOKS!

          • Viet Vet

            Good gawd, now I remember why I left FPM before, posting is just a pain in the a*s*s.

          • Viet Vet

            Oh, and the Viet Nam war went a long way towards winning the Cold War. The Viet Nam War was just a hot episode of the greater Cold War. But it cost the Soviets and ChiComs a whole bunch of treasure that they could ill afford to spend. Especially when Reagan came along and persuaded Europe to forego building a pipeline to the Soviet Union, which denied the Soviet communists precious and very much needed revenue. The Viet Nam War put the USSR, right where Reagan wanted them, all he had to do was give them the final push.

          • Viet Vet

            I could have also pointed out that the Viet Nam War was a de facto war with the Soviet and Chinese communists.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            And we'd have done a lot better without an enemy-funded "peace movement" that continues to spread Soviet propaganda even after most Soviets know the BS from the facts.

        • Mary Sue

          Communism always = bad is the missing element of your formula dude.

          • navdan

            I agree. My point is that other countries are allowed to have bad governments as long as they don't directly threaten ours.

            There's plenty of valid points to make that those governments DID threaten ours. That's fine. However, I think it's an incorrect point for someone to suggest that it's okay to overthrow other governments simply because they don't make international relations as easy as possible for us (admittedly, that's the simplified way to put it).

        • Viet Vet

          Well Duh!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Most of the Anti-Paul comments are simply ad-hominem attacks on the man, not his ideas. Either suggesting that he is positively delusional, "anti-American", or dangerously naive adds nothing to the conversation about what the U.S. foreign policy ought to be going forward."

      He is totally wrong about the importance of American hegemony, and Islamic supremacism. How's that? Care to go in to detail, or do you wisely give up and realize that in fact he and you are delusional?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Most of the Anti-Paul comments are simply ad-hominem attacks on the man"

        Redundancy.

        • kalidestroyer

          "objective facts"

          redundancy

          • objectivefactsmatter

            >"objective facts"

            "redundancy"

            If only everyone knew that. In today's lexicon, it's not the case. What's your favorite color?

      • kalidestroyer

        Sure, the details are well know: the US spent trillions on wars in Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan and supported tyrannical regimes in their wars against their own people and other countries in Idonesia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iraq, et which killed millions of people (yes millions; 2-3 million in Vietnam and Cambodia alone). The US is a rich country for a reason – and not because we are "better" or work harder than other nations – we're rich because we've exceptional national resources and natural defenses against invasion and while Europe was fighting internecine "wars of necessity" throughout the 19th century, we we had liberal immigration policies and relatively free markets. That relative progress was greatly retarded when the US foolishly entered WWI (and thereby upset the developing balance of power in Europe and thereby creating WW2). If you believe in imperialism, as the British and Romans did, then you pretend to worry about fanciful notions as "power vacuums" to justify military intervention. Have a look at British imperial justification for running Africa and India, actually it has a more humanitarian justification but we regard such justifications (rightly) as pure self interested imperialism masquerading as something benign or even benevolent. Unless you believe in central planning and think it works (most neo-conservatives do) then you don't fear planned economies which are destined to fail. Recall that the Soviets couldn't even feed their own population and had to buy grain from us. The military industrial complex, as Eisenhower understood along with the search for "American Greatness" that springs from an imperial gun explains most of the fear and war mongering that existed throughout the cold war, Soviet advancement was way overblown as is "islamofacism" (by the CIA's reckoning there are at most 300 members of Al Queda in Afghanistan now but we station tens of thousands of troops there and guard their poppy plantations – clearly much of the war has nothing to do with Al Queda). You task: defend the trillions the US has spent and the millions the US military (and militaries the US has funded or trained) have killed.

        • Viet Vet

          Thank you for illustrating for readers the perversion of Libertarianism. The beauty is that Ron Paul will never hold any higher office than he presently has. And since you a*holes are so good at "voting your unconsciousness" then watch us stay home if his p*r*i*c*k son ever runs for president. There is a hell of a lot more of us than you kooks.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Soviet advancement was way overblown as is "islamofacism""

          Uh huh.

          "(by the CIA's reckoning there are at most 300 members of Al Queda in Afghanistan now but we station tens of thousands of troops there and guard their poppy plantations – clearly much of the war has nothing to do with Al Queda)."

          Yes, it's about 0'bama needing political cover for empowering the Muslim Brotherhood to build the global caliphate before he tries to run the world from it after destroying the USA.

          Or maybe it's really about poppies. Yes of course. Israel and George Bush planned the whole thing; blame Islam and destroy people and buildings all over the world at the cost of more than a trillion dollars so that we can control 2.7 billion per year from poppies. Maybe they expect the price of heroin to go way up?

          "You task: defend the trillions the US has spent and the millions the US military (and militaries the US has funded or trained) have killed."

          It's a defensive war moron, not an elective one. The tactics were elective, but the war itself was not and is not today. We haven't been aggressive enough and we're prolonging the pain because of those in denial, like you, interfering with our ability to build consensus on sound policies.

          Thanks. Thanks for nothing.

    • Ghostwriter

      Kalidestroyer,the problem is Ron Paul lives in a fantasy world. He believes that if we are nice to our enemies,they'll leave us alone. They're not going to do that. Please get your head out of the clouds and join us in reality,a place foreign to those like Ron Paul.

      • Viet Vet

        Paul believes the same crapola that Kalid just posted.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Paul believes the same crapola that Kalid just posted."

          As one of the puppets stated proudly, they live on Cloud 9 in the realm of delusion.

  • Passer by

    "Continuing to rain down missiles on so many increasingly resentful nations, the US is undermining rather than furthering its security. We are on a collision course with much of the rest of the world if we do not right our foreign policy"

    As far as Islam is concerned, he is a fool. There is no love for Islam in Europe, Russia, India, China, or Black Christian Africa. Does he even know that India and Russia are supporting the US efforts in Afghanistan and want it to remain there, to kill more Taliban? While the US is on collision course with Islam, it is not the first or the last country in that situation. And there is a lot of criticism from around the world, yes, but against the close relations between Saudi Arabia and the US, against the US policies of supporting jihadists in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union, against American support for Jihadists in Bosnia, Syria, etc.
    Most of the world is quite happy with America bombing Islamists around, because otherwise these Islamist groups will be targeting India, Russia, Kenya, European countries, Central Asia countries, and even China (several Turkestan Islamic Party leaders who fight the Chinese were killed by US drones in Pakistan).
    There will be no reaction against american drone efforts from most of the world, as the US is doing their dirty work.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "As far as Islam is concerned, he is a fool."

      Yep. And American hegemony is the only thing slowing them down. He's ideas would speed up and assist their plans. They're counting on him for them to win soon.

      "There will be no reaction against american drone efforts from most of the world, as the US is doing their dirty work."

      What non-Islamic griping we do hear is pure appeasement and dupery. Giving in to it would be a step closer to global sharia.

  • Glennd1

    There is so much thrown into this vicious cesspool of an article that one hardly knows where to start. Okay, first let me say that I'm a libertarian, but not a Ron Paul supporter at all. Aside from his unrepented racist past, my primary reason is his isolationism. He doesn't offer an alternate view of how the U.S. should maintain a strategic balance on the world. He seems to want to just leave it all to itself, which has already dragged us into 2 world wars in the past century. He just ignores all the important strategic analyses and thinking that has gone into our broad strategy. If he wants to throw it in the garbage, he'd better tell us why isolation won't end up worse.

    But that doesn't make him wrong about Israel. Israel is of no strategic value to the U.S. by any traditional measure. They are a political ally, but that is far different from say the importance of say Saudi Arabia, who is a geo-strategic oil producing country. And while I won't argue it here, I believe there is no moral case for supporting Zionism as Ron Paul does, and in fact when I look at Israel, she looks to me as she does to Paul. He's dead right about Israel, and it's cost us so much credibility and treasure and blood, and nobody on the right is capable of discussing it rationally, Here, on a Zionist propaganda site, there is no chance of real, factual dialog with folks who read anything other than Spencer, Horowitz, Pipes, and maybe some Dershowitz thrown in. They don't read say a Benny Morris carefully. or even acknowledge what Shlomo Ben Ami (former Barak foreign minister) openly acknowledged in an interview about a month ago (here's the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzptCFV9mtU&fe… )

    Even this article is laughable in its assertions. I won't defend Paul's Cast Lead numbers, but instead I go to B,tselem, the Israeli human rights organization. Their stats (trusted by Jew and Arab alike) show that 759 non-combatant Palestinians were killed during that incursion into Gaza. And the author's numbers don't even add up, so sloppy is his work. Here's the B'tselem link. http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/casualt

    It's sad, folks here are engaging in something akin to the evangos who hide their heads in the sand and pretend that intelligent design has scientific support. They seem to think that if the keep telling each other it's true, that somehow obviates the scientific data showing evolution is a fact. Same here. Whether you look at IDF archives or Mehachem Begin's own memoir or the work of the "New Historians" what becomes very clear, very quickly is that Israel's hands are covered in blood, since the very beginning, and that they intentionally lied to world about it for 30 years. Most Israelis accept that now. I'll close with a Benny Morris quote. Benny Morris is considered by Palestinian defender and Zionist alike to be a very good historian of the conflict. He's a Jew, a Zionist and an Israeli. All you stupid, blind American supporters of Israel should consider why you would support a nation that has done what Israel has done.

    T Rami al interviewed Morris for the newspaper Yediot Ahronot in December 1994.
    Morris: As one who received his education in Israel, I thought I knew that the Arabs had ‘run away.’ But I knew nothing else. The Jewish generations of 1948, however, knew the truth and deliberately misrepresented it. They knew there were plenty of mass deportations, massacres and rapes…The soldiers and the officials knew, but they suppressed what they knew and were deliberately disseminating lies.”

    Benny Morris also said this:
    “Israelis like to tell the world, that they are running an ‘enlightened’ or ‘benign’ occupation, qualitatively different from other military occupations the world has seen. The truth was radically different. Like all occupations, Israel’s was founded on brute force, repression and fear, collaboration and treachery, beatings and torture chambers, and daily intimidation, humiliation and manipulation.” Israeli historian, Benny Morris, “Righteous Victims.”

    But keep defending Israel like a little lamb in the desert, keep your lies alive, no matter what… Wake up.

    • Mary Sue

      Israel should be defended because it's the only country in that region that grants proper human rights. Like GAY rights! Do you want the ONLY bastion of gay rights in the Middle East to disa__kingpear?

      • navdan

        Since when did it become the job of the United States to promote social norms to the opposite of the globe? That's REALLY what this country needs to be doing?

        • Mary Sue

          YES!

          If you don't think so, then I'm sorry but there is something wrong with you.

          • navdan

            If you really think that one society's job should be to enforce its cultural norms and standards on the rest of the world, then you cannot believe in true freedom and liberty.

            Forcefully declaring ones set of values on another group of people is little more than a form of tyranny, regardless of how positively one feels about those values.

      • kalidestroyer

        This new line of argument – that Israel's policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians should be considered in light of the fact that it is more "liberal" than any government in the region – is only a new argument for Israel; South African made exactly the same argument when arguing that it had the most developed, otherwise most liberal government in Africa. The argument for South Africa went on to say that African blacks didn't have it anywhere better in health, education, life expectancy (maybe even gay rights) so the Afrikaner government should be granted some slack or judged by the same standard as the other (black) governments in the region were judged. This is of course a viciously imperialistic argument that only an unrepentant imperialist would make, though this is not surprising since both South Africa and Israel are imperial conquests.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "This new line of argument – that Israel's policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians should be considered in light of the fact that it is more "liberal" than any government in the region"

          Nope. You're wrong. That's simply an emphasizing point people make, not an independent argument. Can you say, out of context?

          "the fact that it is more "liberal" than any government in the region – is only a new argument for Israel; South African made exactly the same argument when arguing that it had the most developed, otherwise most liberal government in Africa."

          Simplify much? Yes you do.

          "The argument for South Africa went on to say that African blacks didn't have it anywhere better in health, education, life expectancy (maybe even gay rights) so the Afrikaner government should be granted some slack or judged by the same standard as the other (black) governments in the region were judged. This is of course a viciously imperialistic argument that only an unrepentant imperialist would make"

          We can't pass judgment until all the facts are presented, which you haven't done.

          "It's like this….." except that, no, it's not like that.

          "…though this is not surprising since both South Africa and Israel are imperial conquests."

          It's rare to hear such idiotic statements in the service of moral equivalence arguments as a tool to attack Israel. Wait, no it's not rare at all. It's still pretty stupid.

          Question: Which empire conquered Israel? Answer; the Islamic empire. Which empire defeated them? The Western powers. Now you want to restore the original belligerent and pretend to be defending the victim.

          Ever read, "Animal Farm?"

          • Glennd1

            The Roman empire conquered the Jewish state back in 135 CE, 500 years before Mohammed started his scam. Stop lecturing us – you have nothing interesting to say.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The Roman empire conquered the Jewish state back in 135 CE, 500 years before Mohammed started his scam. Stop lecturing us – you have nothing interesting to say."

            I assumed you couldn't find the Romans to restore. Where did you find them?

        • Neils60

          You forgot to mention that the "black African" nations were so incensed with white ruled South Africa, that they did the majority of their business dealings/trade with that nation, than they did with each other combined.

        • Mary Sue

          where your argument fails is Israel has no apartheid or anything like it.

        • Mary Sue

          Bullhonkey. The Dutch went and colonized an empty land.

        • Glennd1

          Well said. These folks are just becoming funny now. Their moral defense of Israel, a la Joan Peter's from Time Immemorial or Leon Uris's Exodus has now been utterly debunked. They now know that they can't claim that Israel was a lamb in the desert, set upon by Arab wolves. They know they can't claim they didn't ethnically cleansed a big chunk of their Western awarded territory (against the wishes of every nation in the mideast) of 650,000 Arab muslims to achieve a majority Jewish state.

          So now they just claim they are better than everyone else in the region in every way, so we should just forget the lies we were told for decades and agree with them. It's so anti-intellectual and immoral, it's staggering.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Their moral defense of Israel, a la Joan Peter's from Time Immemorial or Leon Uris's Exodus has now been utterly debunked. They now know that they can't claim that Israel was a lamb in the desert, set upon by Arab wolves."

            Peters debunked by a liar? I don't think so. Popular opinion on matters related to Israel will always be driven by OPEC and the OIC, not to mention Western bigots like you.

            "They know they can't claim they didn't ethnically cleansed a big chunk of their Western awarded territory (against the wishes of every nation in the mideast) of 650,000 Arab muslims to achieve a majority Jewish state."

            If by "ethnic cleanse" you mean that they defended themselves against terrorist insurgents, we already knew that. It's not salient to any point you've tried to make.

            "So now they just claim they are better than everyone else in the region in every way, so we should just forget the lies we were told for decades and agree with them. It's so anti-intellectual and immoral, it's staggering."

            Proving once again how poor your reading comprehension is. We can't help everyone, but we try. Keep working on it.

        • Omar

          Jews have lived in the Holy Land continuously for over 3000 years. How is Israel an "imperialist" conquest. Palestine is not even an Arabic name (Arabic has no "P" sound in its language). Palestine is a Latin name meaning Philistines, who were Greek sailors who had red hair (the Philistines were not Arabs). The Romans conquered the Holy Land in 66 AD/CE, almost 600 years before Islam was established and the Arabs started moving into the area (by then the Roman Empire had collapsed). Also, quit comparing Israel to what South Africa used to be. The truth is that Arabs living in Israel have more rights and liberties as Israeli citizens than people living in other countries in the Middle East. Non-whites in apartheid-era South Africa were denied citizenship rights and had to live in separate areas in different parts of that country. There is no comparison between Israel and what South Africa used to be. If there is any country that deserves to have that comparison, it is Sudan, which has a racist, sexist, Islamist dictatorship that behaves worse than South Africa's former apartheid government. The regime in Sudan has committed genocide against its black and Christian population (remember Darfur). Yet you don't criticize Sudan at all because you support that Islamist dictatorship. You probably view the Sudanese regime as "progressive" and an advocate of so-called "social justice". Quit repeating leftist/Islamist propaganda and lies against Israel.

      • Glennd1

        Oh, so forget the ethnic cleansing, the stealing of land – none of that matters? Do you realize how silly a statement that is? Do you have any morality whatsoever?

        • Omar

          And you probably support Haj Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Al-Husseini supported the Nazi regime in Germany and wanted to create death camps for Jews in the Middle East. Quit repeating leftist/Islamist propaganda.

        • JoJoJams

          There was no "ethnic cleansing" by Israel – at all. the day Israel was declared a nation again (byt the U.N.) the surrounding arab nations TOLD the local arabs to flee, so the invading arab armies could more easily "drive the jew in to the sea". Israel has a 20% population of "arabs" – and they have more rights than any arab in any "islamic republic of blah blah blah" nation. The ONLY "ethnic cleansing" at the time was by the arabs – who drove out nearly 600,000 jews from their own lands, that Israel took in with no problem. Would that the invading arabs had taken in their own 600,000 they TOLD to flee – -but then, they're just cannon fodder and a thorn in the side of Israel – which is why the hatred still rolls on. No one "stole" land – -and if israel was commiting "genocide" they sure do suck at it!! Those "600,000" "palestinians"(invading arabs) have grown in to tens of millions! Glennd1, for all of your honest belief – the talking points you believe are actually…..lies. Serious.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Oh, so forget the ethnic cleansing, the stealing of land – none of that matters?"

          Define "ethnic cleansing" and for that matter, what land was "stolen?" You don't even specify whether you refer to sovereignty or personally owned property. Did you ever think to ask the liars who taught you what they were talking about?

          None of it matters unless it's true and unjust. You have no case for anything you've said. It's either outright lies or deception through selective presentation of facts, not to mention using characterizations rather than referring to anything we can verify and therefore refute. I wonder why.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "not a Ron Paul supporter at all. Aside from his unrepented racist past, my primary reason is his isolationism. He doesn't offer an alternate view of how the U.S. should maintain a strategic balance on the world. He seems to want to just leave it all to itself, which has already dragged us into 2 world wars in the past century. He just ignores all the important strategic analyses and thinking that has gone into our broad strategy. If he wants to throw it in the garbage, he'd better tell us why isolation won't end up worse."

      "They don't read say a Benny Morris carefully. or even acknowledge what Shlomo Ben Ami (former Barak foreign minister) openly acknowledged in an interview about a month ago "

      I've read them all. Morris supports your narratives only if you quote his earlier publications out of context. There are liberal dupes of Islamic supremacism in Israel. Of course there are liberal views coming from dupes there. That is not evidence of anything other than we know you are not alone in your delusions.

      Correct.

      But that doesn't make him wrong about Israel. Israel is of no strategic value to the U.S. by any traditional measure. They are a political ally, but that is far different from say the importance of say Saudi Arabia, who is a geo-strategic oil producing country. And while I won't argue it here, I believe there is no moral case for supporting Zionism as Ron Paul does, and in fact when I look at Israel, she looks to me as she does to Paul. He's dead right about Israel, and it's cost us so much credibility and treasure and blood, and nobody on the right is capable of discussing it rationally, Here…"

      Incorrect.

      Supporting Israel might be about religion or motivated by subjective feelings on the part of some, but rational people ignore that and look at the rational case. Have you done that?

      Israel is an important island of 100% legitimate Western hegemony in a sea of filth, that oh by the way, happens to be strategically crucial. You mention Saudi Arabia as though supporting Israel hurts our relationship with the Saudis. If the Saudis were purely rational and we had nothing but rational interests to consider, then you might have a case, which you do not.

      The Saudis are working with us in oil trade and taking that money and working against us in jihad. The Israelis are our tool to contain that jihad. Is that hard to understand? That doesn't undermine any of the other legitimate reasons to defend Israeli, but you asked for a rational reason and I just gave you one. Furthermore, given what we know about Islam throughout the world, Israel not only contains the Saudis, it contains (as effectively as anything else we have mustered so far) all of the other regional global sharia aspirations and aspirants. That is huge value by any rational measure.

      If you don't see that, I have to question why.

      "It's sad, folks here are engaging in something akin to the evangos who hide their heads in the sand and pretend that intelligent design has scientific support."

      If that's not fallacious collective ad hominem, there is no such thing.

      "Whether you look at IDF archives or Mehachem Begin's own memoir or the work of the "New Historians" what becomes very clear, very quickly is that Israel's hands are covered in blood,"

      Bring it on. You're quoting jihadis and dupes. Your also quoting people who recanted when they discovered they'd been deceived, not to mention the subjective nature of your comments. Some people feel guilty about winning, even when they're cause is just. That's just another reason to support them; they share traditional Western values, because their ancestors are the authors of those values.

      "T Rami al interviewed Morris for the newspaper Yediot Ahronot in December 1994.
      Morris: As one who received his education in Israel, I thought I knew that the Arabs had ‘run away.’ But I knew nothing else. The Jewish generations of 1948, however, knew the truth and deliberately misrepresented it. They knew there were plenty of mass deportations, massacres and rapes…The soldiers and the officials knew, but they suppressed what they knew and were deliberately disseminating lies.”

      "Benny Morris also said this: "

      Quoting old news out of context. You're also trying to take subjective reactions to subjective feelings of people who have Western values and the conscience to go with it…but you are not comparing it at all to who caused all of this, Islamic jihadis. Slice it any way you want, parse a century or more of history any deceptive way you want to, in the end when all the facts are lined of for rational analysis, you're speaking on the side of evil liars, by trumpeting their lies and imaging that those who oppose you are delusional. Some of them may be delusional, but that doesn't mean you're correct or that a strong, clear rational case can not be made that will destroy your case, any day of the week, assuming I have time to read and reply.

      1/2

      • Glennd1

        Here we go again. Let's cut to the chase.

        Morris: He admitted publicly and recently that the Zionist campaign between '47-'49 "amounts to ethnic cleansing". He goes on to say they didn't mean it (laughable lie) and that they had no choice. He also claims that the Zionists didn't go far enough. But you do have to agree that I"m factually correct, and my context is completely consistent with Morris's. Morris simply believes Zionists have a valid claim to the land of Palestine and is willing to mow down the rights of the indigenous people living there to accomplish it. Which changes the entire moral calculus of how Israel has been sold to the American people. They are the invader and the aggressor in the conflict, and as such lose all moral high ground, unless you believe Jews – just by the fact of their Jewishness – have an innate right to Palestine, which is de facto religious supremacism.

        Funny, you accuse me of using emotion – right after you agree to my factual characterization of the conflict that obviates the lies repeated on these pages daily, and the moral case for Israel. Do you realize how confused you are?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Morris: He admitted publicly and recently that the Zionist campaign between '47-'49 "amounts to ethnic cleansing"."

          Ethnic cleansing by what definition? He's not saying it was wrong. You're trying to use a loaded phrase from a sort of confession of sadness to indicate these are immoral people or actions. That's not at all the case, nor his intended message. He wants to propagate "nuanced history" and that is what he's done. He's giving all the facts, plus occasionally using emotional characterizations to show empathy for the defeated enemy. They use his honesty and empathy against Israel, just as you do now.

          "He goes on to say they didn't mean it (laughable lie) and that they had no choice."

          OK. So you use a phrase which has no consistent factual meaning (define it if you claim it does) and is almost universally used as a characterization to demonize…

          "He also claims that the Zionists didn't go far enough."

          But wait, wasn't your claim that Morris was sort of confessing they were wrong, now Morris himself is evil because first he "confesses" to "ethnic cleansing" but then wished they were even more evil? Is that your point? Maybe you took his phrase out of context, counting on the fact that most Westerners react very negatively to the phrase, especially when there is no context at all given. These actions occurred during a war where Israel was attacked by those who were "cleansed." War is ugly, and ethnic cleansing is a relatively new term.

          "But you do have to agree that I"m factually correct, and my context is completely consistent with Morris's."

          Some of your facts have a technical basis in truth, and they are used to misrepresent the truth. You STILL have not given context or even defined what ethnic cleansing means to Morris.

          I sense you still don't grasp the gravity of your failure to look at all of the facts. Instead you seek to demonize Israel, you find facts out of context but convince yourself that nothing else matters and you think you've made your case. I don't know your motives, but you're a polemist who may not realize this fact.

          "Morris simply believes Zionists have a valid claim to the land of Palestine and is willing to mow down the rights of the indigenous people living there to accomplish it. "

          Gee, are you now quoting Morris as reliable, or demonizing him? Can't make up your mind. It seems rational to you because you've seen others do it so often. I've heard all of this before many times.

          "They are the invader and the aggressor in the conflict, and as such lose all moral high ground"

          You sure concluded a lot from the "fact" that Morris characterized tactics of a defensive war as "ethnic cleansing" without even defining the phrase.

          Question for you: When did Israel invade? I didn't hear that part. Which sovereign was overthrown in that invasion, or by the establishment of Israel? You sure left out a lot of facts in your story of these poor victims. Those poor jihadis? Are you a collectivist and member of the uma, or just a dupe?

          "Funny, you accuse me of using emotion"

          Yes. Rational people look at all the evidence before weighing it. You're a liar, ignoring the huge weight of evidence that goes against your partisan presentation of the facts-as-understood-by jihadis and psychopathic Jew-haters.

          "right after you agree to my factual characterization of the conflict that obviates the lies repeated on these pages daily, and the moral case for Israel."

          "Do you realize how confused you are?"

          It's quite obvious who is confused. You want to play that it's me, go for it. Your BS can't get any more harmful by piling on lie after lie. Your credibility is already below zero and widely known.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      2/2

      "But keep defending Israel like a little lamb in the desert, keep your lies alive, no matter what… Wake up."

      You repeat lies and then close your eyes and ears to those who can refute them. You aren't looking for the truth because your decisions and positions are based on subjective feelings, not robust investigations. You're not the only dupe out there. Take heart in the fact that you can wake up and perform true due diligence you owe to your nation, assuming you pretend to be an American or anyone who benefits from American hegemony.

      • mah29001

        Defend the Palestinians, yea "none of them" want genocide even though they say they do which is the side you Paulbot Fascists embrace. Embracing Islamic hegemony is okay and fine.

    • mah29001

      And you sir are promoting Hamas propaganda.

      • Glennd1

        Did you bother to even watch the Shlomo Ben Ami interview from 6 weeks ago that I linked to? He concedes everything I've said is true — and he's the former foreign minister under Barak, and an actual scholar on this topic. He's still a Zionist, but he simply claims that all nations have been formed in immoral ways, so that excuses everything Israel has done, lol. He really says that. Go watch the video or read Morris – the facts are clear now, the only argument left to Zionists is that they simply wanted the land, took and and now will keep it – no matter what. Okay, cool, do it. Fight it out with the Arabs and the Islamists in the desert. Just don't tell me it's a righteous cause that a moral person should support. Or that the U.S. should support either side.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Shlomo Ben Ami (from his speech), "Anything stated by Glennd1 is absolutely factual, well-reasoned and balanced and no other views should be considered."

          "and an actual scholar on this topic"

          Whoa now, a scholar? Shoot those who disagree, we don't need to hear from anyone else. The liberal left has spoken and the discussion is over.

          "He's still a Zionist"

          Murder him then.

          "but he simply claims that all nations have been formed in immoral ways, so that excuses everything Israel has done, lol. He really says that"

          Gee, you wouldn't be paraphrasing him, would you?

          "Go watch the video or read Morris – the facts are clear now, the only argument left to Zionists is that they simply wanted the land, took and and now will keep it – no matter what."

          That's the story you keep repeating, with a sprinkle of facts that turn a soft conscience in to a "confession" of facts that exists only in the minds of jihadis, communists and Jew-haters.

          "Just don't tell me it's a righteous cause that a moral person should support."

          What do you care about what moral people do? How does that involve you?

          "Or that the U.S. should support either side."

          Let's see, Israel or a global caliph. I guess it doesn't really matter, right Ron? They won't bother us.

    • Ghostwriter

      No,Glennd1. How about this? The Israelis care about America and are a decent people. The Palestinians hate us and want to kill us. That sums things up nicely.

    • Viet Vet

      What you should have done jerkface is stayed over there at that disgusting Lew Rockwell site, where your screwloose crap would be more to your liking.

  • Omar

    Ron Paul's foreign policy is a leftist's foreign policy. Ron Paul supports anti-Americanism . He believes that America should be appeasing its leftist and Islamist enemies. No wonder he lost the GOP primary season. If Ron Paul were president, the world would have been a much worse place.

    • Glennd1

      Please, do the world a favor. Don't reproduce or vote ever again, okay? Ron Paul, a leftist, can you right-wingers and Zionists be any more idiotic?

      • Mary Sue

        he's definitely leftist in his foreign policy, even if he has some other ideas that are right wing.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          He's obviously non-conformist who advocates tactics that play in to the hands of others from diverse enemies. His strategy is totally delusional and not easy to align with major parties or trends.

        • Glennd1

          You don't even know what leftitst means, you ignorant harpy. A leftist view of the world would see this through a materialist lens, relying on the dialectic to explain the events. I'm pretty sure you don't even know what my last sentence means, which is why you should just shut your mouth before revealing even more of your ignorance.

          • Omar

            And you don't know the true definition of Zionism. Zionism is simply a movement to establish a Jewish state in the Holy Land, where Jews have lived there continuously for over 3000 years. Islamism, on the other hand, calls for world domination and Sharia law.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "And you don't know the true definition of Zionism. Zionism is simply a movement to establish a Jewish state in the Holy Land, where Jews have lived there continuously for over 3000 years."

            He probably knows that much, but hates it all the more because of it. He's convinced that all those Soviet and Islamic imperialist lies are true, and WE, the USA, are the imperialists. It's all our fault.

            "Islamism, on the other hand, calls for world domination and Sharia law."

            By any means at its disposal. They'd eat this guy for soup if they thought the cheese god wanted them to, and smile afterwards. None of that matters though because those dirty Jews invaded and stole and raped and abused and hurt religious feelings and are arrogant Jews who won't submit to allah.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You don't even know what leftitst means, you ignorant harpy."

            What a stupid thought, but let's hear yours for a laugh.

            "A leftist view of the world would see this through a materialist lens, relying on the dialectic to explain the events."

            Really now? Who said that? Which leftists? You and who else? So you're the pragmatic realists who know that since there is no god, it's up to you to work on getting this world perfected. That is what the left is about. It's about being clueless at the same time thinking you are well-informed and smarter than any who disagree with you. Materialist? Yeah, Marxist dialectics? OK.

            http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=leftist

            leftist (adj.)
            1897, from left (adj.) in the political sense + -ist.

            left (adj.)
            c.1200, from Kentish and northern English form of O.E. lyft- "weak, foolish" (cf. lyft-adl "lameness, paralysis," E.Fris. luf, Dutch dialectal loof "weak, worthless"). It emerged 13c. as "opposite of right" (the left being usually the weaker hand), a derived sense also found in cognate M.Du., Low German luchter, luft. But German link, Du. linker "left" are from O.H.G. slinc, M.Du. slink "left," related to O.E. slincan "crawl," Swedish linka "limp," slinka "dangle."

            As a noun from c.1200. Political sense arose from members of a legislative body assigned to the left side of a chamber, first attested in English 1837 (by Carlyle, in reference to the French Revolution), probably a loan-translation of Fr. la gauche (1791), said to have originated during the seating of the French National Assembly in 1789 in which the nobility took the seats on the President's right and left the Third Estate to sit on the left. Became general in U.S. and British political speech c.1900.

            Used since at least c.1600 in various senses of "irregular, illicit;" earlier proverbial sense was "opposite of what is expressed" (mid-15c.). Phrase out in left field "out of touch with pertinent realities" is attested from 1944, from the baseball fielding position that tends to be far removed from the play.

            It helps to know what people mean when they describe you.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Ron Paul's foreign policy is a leftist's foreign policy"

        He's right. But you say:

        "Ron Paul, a leftist, can you right-wingers and Zionists be any more idiotic?"

        And I say, can your reading comprehension be any worse? Probably yes. His (Paul's) strategy is not leftist, but his policy positions coincide with the left of today. Is that too complicated for you to understand?

        Apparently so.

        • Glennd1

          Listen, you are nowhere near as smart as you seem to believe you are. Your tedious parsing of comments is the redoubt of the small-minded – these aren't academic texts, it's a conversation. What we have today is a leftist foreign policy, yes? Leftists like Susan Rice and Samantha Powers and Hilary Clinton want to actually harness our wealth and military power to enforce our "values" around the world, and give the U.N. the license to direct our use of that power. You might want to look up an idea called. "R2P" and see what leftists actually believe our foreign policy should be before opening your mouth.

          So, please shut the eff up before you make yourself look even more foolish.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "these aren't academic texts, it's a conversation"

            Really? Replying to your stupid comments in detail is something you associate with academic texts? Or do you "feel" we are talking above your head. Sorry. Your feelings count too. You might after all be a Muslim.

            "What we have today is a leftist foreign policy, yes?"

            Generally it's associated with the left for a number of reasons.

            "Leftists like Susan Rice and Samantha Powers and Hilary Clinton want to actually harness our wealth and military power to enforce our "values" around the world"

            Both sides of the aisle want to do that, it's a matter of degree.

            "and give the U.N. the license to direct our use of that power."

            That's globalist and stupid, but many leftists are also globalists, and also stupid.

            "You might want to look up an idea called. "R2P" and see what leftists actually believe our foreign policy should be before opening your mouth. "

            Why should I when you speak for them? Don't you speak for everyone and know everything?

            Moron, there is no discreet "leftist" party. It's not capitalized and that should have been your first clue.

            I gave you some definitions that will help you understand and get along better with others. Let me know if you want me to put them up again.

      • Omar

        How about you do the world a favor and quit exporting your left-wing Islamist propaganda in the world. People want facts, not Marxist/Islamist propaganda.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Anyone else can always be more idiotic by joining the legion of Ron Paul puppets and parrots.

    • navdan

      He's anti-interventionism in his foreign policy, eh?…Then I guess his foreign policy is about as leftist as George "No Entangling Alliances" Washington.

      And considering that Ron Paul's primary campaign got more donations from active duty military members than all other candidates combined, I guess that must mean service members have anti-American, leftist foreign policy agendas, that only wants to leave our country weak.

      I guess we don't need to look back across half a century of foreign policy causes-and-effects and unintentional consequences. It makes it much easier to ignore all that and just say "That guy looks bad…attack."

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "He's anti-interventionism in his foreign policy, eh?…Then I guess his foreign policy is about as leftist as George "No Entangling Alliances" Washington."

        Mr. Clueless,

        Anti-interventionist is when you leave a second and third party alone to do what they want to each other when you have no direct interests. When you do have direct interests and you're just too afraid or too stupid to understand, and instead you want to appease the bully, you can't hide behind George Washington and get away with it.

        0'Bama is appeasing people who are doing direct harm to us presently and intend to destroy our civilization. I doubt Washington would run from a confrontation with jihadis, I just really doubt it. But you might have read too many liberal re-writes of history, so it's not possible for me to accurately predict where precisely your logic failed.

        "And considering that Ron Paul's primary campaign got more donations from active duty military members than all other candidates combined, I guess that must mean service members have anti-American, leftist foreign policy agendas, that only wants to leave our country weak. "

        Their hope was to displace 0'Bama. They're soldiers, not analysts and many probably figured Paul had a better shot at getting rid of that communist than any other candidate. That's about all that means.

        "I guess we don't need to look back across half a century of foreign policy causes-and-effects and unintentional consequences. It makes it much easier to ignore all that and just say "That guy looks bad…attack.""

        Ron Paul can do better because I just think he can. I just know he won't make that kind of mistake. What's a call to prayer anyway? I have to go how many times a day? Oh $hit, Ron Paul screwed the pooch on that one, but he's still a great "anti-interventionist."

        "Allah akbar (stop hitting me, I said it loud enough)"

        • navdan

          I think most of your other points are better grounded in factual reason than these ones. I'm not a pro-Obama, blame-America crowd.

          I know you somehow don't think I'm capable of thoughtful, critical opinions, but I'm not a "clueless" half-wit staring into the distance and absorbing other peoples' thoughts and parroting them.

          I don't think anti-interventionism only exists when you have no other interests involved. We have an interest in North Korea not existing. That doesn't mean that without direct provocation we should eliminate them. We could have potential interests in all manner of ways in all manner of geographic areas. I don't think that means we should interfere continually simply because doing so may make things easier for our economy, national security, or whatever (and I'm not suggesting you think we should either, with as broad a point as I'm making there).

          I don't think reconsidering the wisdom of keeping military bases in over 100 countries equates to being too stupid to understand or too afraid to take action of some sort. And I also don't think it means you're necessarily appeasing bullies.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I know you somehow don't think I'm capable of thoughtful, critical opinions, but I'm not a "clueless" half-wit staring into the distance and absorbing other peoples' thoughts and parroting them. "

            Don't take it personally. I don't. We're talking to each other's arguments, not to each other personally. I don't think poorly of you at all, but when a comment coincides with propaganda, I tend to focus on that.

            "I don't think anti-interventionism only exists when you have no other interests involved. We have an interest in North Korea not existing."

            OK, I'll go along.

            "That doesn't mean that without direct provocation we should eliminate them. "

            I would agree and I think most others would too. It's not really controversial so I'll try to see the value in your illustration. By the way, we have been provoked by them and not many people advocated war. We still send them aid. Maybe you'll get to that.

            "I don't think that means we should interfere continually simply because doing so may make things easier for our economy, national security, or whatever (and I'm not suggesting you think we should either, with as broad a point as I'm making there). "

            Generally speaking I agree with you that the standards should be very high before interfering with sovereignty. National sovereignty is getting harder to respect for a number of reasons, political and technological.

            "I don't think reconsidering the wisdom of keeping military bases in over 100 countries equates to being too stupid to understand or too afraid to take action of some sort. And I also don't think it means you're necessarily appeasing bullies."

            Again, I don't disagree with the general ideology of guys like Ron Paul. If he got enough of the details right about what we should be concerned about security-wise, I might even think he's the greatest ever. Details matter and that is where I think he's dead wrong and delusional. His philosophy as such is not defective, but his analysis is and it seems like those who support him accept his analysis as well as his philosophies. We do need to of be a bit wiser with regard to "getting involved" without strong evidence of a need to.

            The bottom line is that when you combine his philosophy with his stated positions, in particular on Islam and Israel, it's clear he's delusional. Many of his supporters who blindly defend him knowing these details seem to be delusional too. That doesn't make every aspect of his ideology wrong per se because it's not.

            By the way, when you talk about what "anti-interventionism" means in today's political discourse vs. what it means literally, those distinctions matter too. Asking tougher questions and vetting more thoroughly as a rule would be great. Denial about Islam and the realities of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration, civilization jihad plots around the world, denying all of those things makes any productive debate almost impossible because those matters could turn to immediate existential threat the minute one of them gets a nuclear weapon that we can't defend against.

            We got to start caring more about the salient facts of the matter so that we can continue dialog over the nuanced policy decisions. How can you do that with a guy who thinks that Islam is just another flavor of Christianity? That's ignorance of salient, urgent facts that matter.

            So know, it's not his "reconsideration" that we have a problem with, it's the erroneous conclusions he comes to in the process. If you see the distinction, you'll be more precisely able to handle our objections. To conclude that Islam is not a threat is not acceptable in my book.

      • Glennd1

        Don't feed this troll. He has nothing of value to offer as commentary of his own, but rather thinks that parsing and criticizing every word written here, as though he's engaged in Straussian esotericism, makes him look smart.

        Put another way, if this loser ever had an original thought, it died of loneliness a long time ago.

        • Omar

          Excuse me? I am not a troll, you are. You keep falsely accusing Israel and the West of wrongdoing when all they are trying to do is do bring peace and democracy to the world. You, on the other hand, support far left-wing causes like appeasing America's enemies. Learn from facts instead of leftist/Islamist propaganda.

      • Omar

        George Washington said "No entangling alliances" at a time when the United States was still a new country. That was 1796, only 20 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed, and only 13 years after the American Revolution finished. The U.S. was not fully developed at the time. Today, the U.S. needs alliances and friendships from other democratic countries like the United Kingdom and Israel, in order to form a more cooperative world. Because America is more developed today than in 1796, we can form alliances with other countries, since the United States has more technology and is more advanced than during the 1790s. Ron Paul's isolationist stance does not work in today's world. If George Washington were alive today, he would not have the same foreign policy stance as Ron Paul. That's the reality.

    • Ghostwriter

      Well,Omar. Who said those like Glennd1 are living in the real world?

  • 4_Constitution

    Ron Paul is just as much of a bigot as Obama. They both hate Jews.

    • navdan

      Yes.

      "Israel can defend itself, the U.S. doesn't need to send billions of dollars to a highly capable country when we have our own severe economic crisis to deal with" = hating Jews.

      Brilliant.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        ""Israel can defend itself, the U.S. doesn't need to send billions of dollars to a highly capable country when we have our own severe economic crisis to deal with" = hating Jews."

        That's not the case he made. The evidence does exist, but it's moot in my mind because you can't regulate hate. I don't care that much about motives unless someone is blatantly lying and those lies form the foundation of their motives, like Islamic supremacists. I don't think Ron Paul is that kind of hater, nor do I think he even understands himself. His motives are moot because his ideas are totally delusional.

        • http://twitter.com/BernardKingIII @BernardKingIII

          "His motives are moot because his ideas are totally delusional."

          Ad hominem attacks might make you feel better, and they might deter some people from political discourse temporarily, but they are no match for reasoned argument. Indeed, they usually serve to highlight it's absence.

    • kalidestroyer

      Is that why Obama's best friends with Israeli citizen Rohm Emmanuel who served in the IDF and whose dad was a proud Irgun member? And I'm sure he demonstrated his hatred for Israel when he goes to annually speak to AIPAC (but magically gets a standing ovation). And Ron Paul has a strange taste for favorite philosophers/economists Murray Rothbard and FA Hayek (both Jews) if actually hated Jews. If Israel cries antisemite anytime anyone disagrees with it (even mildly), even Americans will stop falling for this game.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Is that why Obama's best friends with Israeli citizen Rohm Emmanuel who served in the IDF and whose dad was a proud Irgun member?"

        Yes. That's why. Cause and effect. You got it sparky.

        "And I'm sure he demonstrated his hatred for Israel when he goes to annually speak to AIPAC (but magically gets a standing ovation). "

        Right. 0'Bama would never engage in politics that might mislead anyone!

        "And Ron Paul has a strange taste for favorite philosophers/economists Murray Rothbard and FA Hayek (both Jews) if actually hated Jews."

        Said the bigot, who doesn't even understand bigotry enough to defend himself effectively. "I'm not a racist, why my best friend.." Was once a statement that had impact. No people laugh. Your statements here are parallel.

        "If Israel cries antisemite anytime anyone disagrees with it (even mildly), even Americans will stop falling for this game."

        It's not Israel that I hear making these claims. Actually Ron Paul is only moderately bigoted. He probably does not hate all Jews or even hate Israel all that much. It's just that he's blind to so many things, that his positions are in line with those who hate Israel. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

      • Omar

        What about our president's connections with lunatics like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright? Apparently, left-wing radicalism doesn't concern you at all.

  • Bright Knight

    Ron Paul is absolutely naive if it comes to the Muzzies. That's the main reason why I opposed him STRONGLY.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Ron Paul is absolutely naive if it comes to the Muzzies. That's the main reason why I opposed him STRONGLY."

      P R E C I S E L Y! Every election our leaders should be showing us that they're getting smarter, but they're not. Look at McCain and other dupes who opposed Boxer's questions about Huma. What a joke. This is an unresolved crisis to this day, far more serious than having Rice replace Clinton.

  • fanlad

    Mitt may have won in 2012, if he had floated the idea Ron Paul for secretary of the treasury, and gotten Paul's supporters behind him. Ron knows the fed and monetary policy, however, Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas are down right scary. God bless Israel and America.

  • mah29001

    Oh boy, here come the Paulbot Cyber-Fascists again, if Islamic supremacists are so upset that we removed a government in Iran in the 50's, why didn't the Buddhists in Southeast Asia bomb us for bombing them? Yea, why not? Or the recent episode of those citizens of Bangladesh perishing in that unsafe factory owned by Wal-Mart and other companies? Yea Paulbots explain that.

    So it must mean that Jihadists are not upset because we overthrow their governments….they are UPSET because we don't follow their example of way of life.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "why didn't the Buddhists in Southeast Asia bomb us for bombing them?"

      Because Buddhism is NOT the "religion of peace?"

      "Or the recent episode of those citizens of Bangladesh perishing in that unsafe factory owned by Wal-Mart and other companies?"

      Because they're not murderous totalitarian liars?

    • Mary Sue

      Buddhists tend NOT to bomb people on Principle. That's why you don't see Tibetan monks fixing up IED's or turning themselves into suicide bombs. The most they ever do is set themselves on fire. Which doesn't do much, given that China's leaders are all Eric Cartman at heart.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Any compromise with Islam is taking a step on the proverbial slippery slope, any ignorance of
    the danger Islamists pose is throwing one's self down the slope into a dead end complete
    with every misery imaginable for a free person…………………….William

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Any compromise with Islam is taking a step on the proverbial slippery slope, any ignorance of
      the danger Islamists pose is throwing one's self down the slope into a dead end complete
      with every misery imaginable for a free person…………………….William"

      That's the succinct message we need to send to our political leaders, every chance we get and then twice on Mondays.

    • http://twitter.com/BernardKingIII @BernardKingIII

      This was the same propaganda used to justify Vietnam, and numerous other misguided policies designed to avoid the appearance of compromise with communism. At least then Soviet Russia had some military power. Radical Islam is just as evil (if not more so) as communism, but has no military strength. This is an enemy that can be fought without $1 trillion of annual defense spending. Not every evil is an existential threat that must be blown up with weapons.

  • broken arrow

    Paul's position on Israel has been well known for years ,and should surprise no one . Where Paul lands in the political categories is more of convenience than actual ideology . Libertarian is a word that is easily understood , Paul however is a hybrid ,Lyndon Larouche ,Lew Rockwell , John Birch Society ,bigot .

  • UCSPanther

    What's the matter, Ron Paul cultists? Running out of steam? Unable to drown out opinions contrary to your own?

    Time to pack it in and accept the fact that your fringe candidate will languish in the obscurity.

    • Mary Sue

      what I found hilarious about this whole topic is some of my earlier posts went down all the way to like -7 when i went to bed, to +5 or more when I woke up in the morning XD

      • Lee

        maybe its then when the programmed political dregs get a life Sue…..

        • Mary Sue

          Either that or all the stupid hippies are in a quirky time zone.

  • broken arrow

    Ron Paul is irrelevant inAmerican Politics , however he gets traction from the right , since some of his views appeal to the fringe on the right .Nonetheless aside from Doomsday political factions , he remains irrelevant , I think Roseann did better in the election than Paul .

    • Lee

      No broken arrow!….its really the clear thinking Americans that have become irrelevant. They swallow the propaganda of the mainstream media, they dont have a clue what is constitutional and what is not. Thats why the Obama-disaster is continuing and why the Bush-disaster to successfully laid the foundation for him. They are actually one and the same! The one just wears a blue tie and the other a red one and people think that they are different?? Really? They do not realise that they are part of the frog-in-the-boiling-water experiment and they somehow cant see the wood for the trees when they look at Israel. What will you say, now that Jasser Arrafat's body was exhumed, if it is indeed found that he was poisoned (like so many other people) by Mossad (Israel) and the CIA (our beloved Patriot Act instigators). If it was done to the Arabs its ok…. If they are bombarded with depleted Uranium its ok. Would it be ok if we were treated that way? Hopefully you would be the first one to defend our fatherland and our constitution?……or are you just pandering after the entitlement benefits our country offers?

    • Viet Vet

      The fringe right are the Libertarians, the kooks who have flooded this non-Libertarian board. So they are trolls also.

  • cynthia curran

    Well, the John Bircher thinking still even shows up with some of the tea party that talk about the CFR,the Blidenbergers, and so forth among the South Orange County Tea party ,way back in the 1960's the Birchers were popular in Orange County and still have a tiny influence. Long before Ron Paul you had James Utt and John Schmitz. Schmitz ran on the American Ind Party in 1972 and recieved 2.6 percent of the vote higher than Gary Johnson at 1.3 in the state of California. Schmitz daughter had an affair with a 13 year old boy when she was 30. Her name is Mary Laturneau.

    • Viet Vet

      That is the Libertarians (big L) talking. If they are allowed to get into the Tea Party, it is doomed.

  • broken arrow

    btw , contrary to any guess work , Ron Paul IS NOT NAIVE about middle east politics or policy . He's anti-Israel and anti-semitic , yet wraps it up in a charade of isolationism .

  • http://twitter.com/BernardKingIII @BernardKingIII

    Does anyone here realize that ending American aid to Israel is a policy supported by Netanyahu and the Likud party? They understand that Israel's interests are better served when it can make its own security decisions free of US influence.

  • mr normal

    Congratulations on one of the most biased articles I have ever read. Was it Mosad financed?