Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Peter Schiff on U.S. Bond markets and his possible 2010 Senate campaign | Main | Lord Black appeals »

Friday, January 09, 2009

Ron Paul in Congress on Israel Resolution: Blowback bites!

Ron Paul recounts a little history in his speech to Congress on House Resolution 34 Recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process introduced by Nancy Pelosi and others.

Dr. No is, unsurprisingly, opposed to this and all such resolutions which pass judgment on conflicts in which the U.S. is not a party:

As Ron Paul sees it, there is no benefit for the U.S. to take sides in the Israeli-Gaza conflict. To understand why, a look at his brief piece of foreign policy advice to the incoming administration of Barack Obama is instructive on his preferred policy of non-intervention:

Our interventionist foreign policy stands ready to be put on a new course with the new administration. Unfortunately, it seems the new administration is likely to continue the mistakes of the past. I've often discussed interventionist foreign policy and the resulting blowback. The current administration's foreign policy, I'm afraid, has created a huge impetus for blowback against the United States. However, I truly believe much of the world stands ready to look beyond our nation's recent blunders if the new administration proves to be heading in a more reasonable direction.

Other nations around the world find our interference in their affairs condescending, and it is very dangerous for us. We may think we have much to gain by inserting ourselves in these complex situations, but on the contrary we suffer from many consequences. Other countries have their problems, to be sure. But how would we feel if China or Russia came to our soil and tried to depose our problematic leaders or correct our policies for us? Our problems are ours to solve, and we need to give other countries that respect as well. Instead, we have been turning alleged, phantom threats into real, actual threats.

We should follow the foreign policy advice of the Founders – friendship and commerce with all nations. One positive step would be to end our destructive embargo of Cuba, which deprives our farmers of a market just 90 miles from U.S. shores while strengthening the Communist regime. We've seen 50 years of statist restrictions not accomplish anything. A change is needed. Other countries should decide how to govern themselves. Even if we don't necessarily approve, it's none of our business. If other people foolishly choose to live under statist experimental regimes, they need to fail in their own right, and not have us as a scapegoat. We need to focus on our own affairs.

However, the pressures exerted on our leadership from the military-industrial complex and big business is not in favor of peace or freedom, or especially nonintervention. Intervention is big business. Defense contracts topped $300 billion last year, and total spending on war and our overseas empire is up to $1 trillion per year. That represents a lot of people earning a living off of war and conquest. But rather than adding to our economy, all of this money is taken from the economy in order to wage war and destruction. Imagine if those resources were put to creative, productive use here at home!

We need to rein in our overseas empire, as quickly as possible. We need to bring our troops home and get our economy back into the business of production, not destruction. The smartest thing we could do is admit we don't know all the answers to all the world's problems. If the new administration can take a closer look at real free trade and no entangling alliances, we would be much better off for it. Economically, we could save hundreds of billions of dollars each year! The new leadership has the opportunity and the political capital to do this. But unfortunately, it is not likely to happen.

Posted by Kalim Kassam on January 9, 2009 in U.S. politics | Permalink

Comments

My co-blogger Hugh had a perfect response to a similarly ignorant, bigoted, and disgusting comment. I'll repeat it for you, Mr. Baxter.

"Go sit on your thumb"

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2009-01-09 2:22:50 PM


Its just a shame to have a great article on common sense and then have a blithering racist idiot have the first post...

Posted by: rokdevil | 2009-01-09 2:24:12 PM


I take it that Baxter is a Ron Paul fan.

Posted by: Cid the Cidious | 2009-01-09 3:05:27 PM


Alan -

You are a disgraceful anti-semite.

As for Ron Paul, this is just more leftist-style blame the U.S. first nonsense. Any person who really cares for liberty would not be so indifferent to the real threat to Israel's very existence. The U.S. could leave the middle east tomorrow and it wouldn't make one iota of difference to Hamas. Indeed, they would rejoice and redouble their efforts to finish what the Nazis started. And the paleo-libertarian right would in effect be cheering them on (that is, when they can spare some time from decrying Lincoln and praising the confederacy).

Posted by: Craig | 2009-01-09 3:09:44 PM


Alan Baxter's comment has been removed. It shouldn't have appeared in the first place. We do not tolerate racism and anti-semitism on our private property. If you'd like to be a filthy racist, go start your own blog.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-01-09 3:15:43 PM


Ron Paul makes a lot of sense here. I have never thought of the conflict this way.

Posted by: TM | 2009-01-09 5:03:58 PM


Boy am I glad libertarians are nuts. it prevents them from ever having a chance.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-01-09 5:35:00 PM


Is Ron Paul really saying that other nations are not on North America's soil doing their best to influence our politics? If so, he is wrong. Dangerously wrong.

Posted by: Agha Ali Arkahn | 2009-01-09 9:28:55 PM


"Is Ron Paul really saying that other nations are not on North America's soil doing their best to influence our politics?"

Certainly not.

Over the years Paul has decried the undue influence of Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt on US politics.

This is a large part of why he, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, prefers "peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2009-01-09 9:40:19 PM


Thanks KK: Ron seems to me to mimic the ostrich.

Posted by: Agha Ali Arkahn | 2009-01-09 9:50:54 PM


Meaning what? That his head is in the sand? Why is it when anyone suggests that the United States stop meddling in other nations' affairs some people take that to mean ending all contact? I've certainly never heard Dr. Paul suggest ending all contact. I think he wants us to...hmmm....what's it called? Mind our own business?

Posted by: rokdevil | 2009-01-09 11:29:11 PM


It kind of sad don't you think?
A man like Ron Paul who is about the only objective and truly American politician out there tells the unvarnished truth about the effect US foreign policy is having on average Americans and you get people calling him crazy for it.
It reminds me of the the Salem inquisitions....WITCH ! WITCH! Burn him BURN him.
The ignorance levels are directly comparable.

The thing most don't take into account is the RP knows his history. He has seen this coming for a long time and can honestly say "I told you so".

But let's ignore all that common sense and get out there and kill something today, rather than just trade and coexist peacefully.

Posted by: JC | 2009-01-10 6:38:32 AM


PS Zeb,

Americans are "by definition" Libertarians.
You seem to know some history, why don't you know that!?

Posted by: JC | 2009-01-10 6:40:00 AM


The chorus of reptiles hiss "anti-Semite" ever harsher as the truth of Israel's true nature spreads.

Daylight dawning on the vampire's lair.

All the myths concealing Israel's essence are shedding.

Posted by: JP Zinger | 2009-01-10 4:48:58 PM


All the myths concealing Israel's essence are shedding.

Posted by: JP Zinger | 2009-01-10 4:48:58 PM


I'm guessing this Troll works for the Human Rights Commission.

Posted by: JC | 2009-01-10 6:16:39 PM


This site, for the benefit of its American visitors, should post a disclaimer, that it is governed by the laws of Canada and that this government and special interests believe the limiting of certain types of speech is a "valid objective." The intent is to protect "vulnerable members of our society."

Posted by: DJ | 2009-01-10 6:32:43 PM


His ideals are so naive and infantile.

1) Of course any money spent on arms reduces the wealth of a nation. So do schools. So do the courts. But without them you have Mexico.

2) How is the US intervening in the Israeli-Hamas conflict? All the US is doing is giving its moral support to Israel - saying essentially that Israel is justified. You think a Christian like Paul would not be so morally relativistic. There is a right and there is a wrong. We are also facing the same foe.

3) This idea that if we trade, even with nations that harbour ideals hostile to classical liberalism, will magically create some peaceful world is so childish. Get a clue Paul. Read some of the founders of Wahhabism. They do NOT want to trade with us. We are the spawn of Satan and they hate capitalism.

Posted by: Faramir | 2009-01-10 11:14:06 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.