President Ron Paul

[drewkitty]

Rep. Ron Paul from Texas is running for President. He had a rally here in Mountain View, CA on Saturday that didn't make the media. You see, he's not considered a "viable" candidate although he kicked quite a bit of ass in the Presidential debates. A thousand people still showed up.

He's got a bunch of qualifications:

He's a strict Constitutionalist.

He wants the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Education abolished.

He's pro-individual and anti big government.

He's viciously attacked the Republicans for departing their conservative roots.

Last but not least . . . he's been against the Iraq adventure from the very beginning

Finally, the Washington Post has written an article on him.

I don't agree with him on some of his ideas and positions.

So what?

He's a man of integrity and honor in a country that is critically short on both.

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

If elected, Ron Paul will be a one-term President for the same reason that Jimmy Carter was: namely, the assumptions he had about the world won't match what will happen when he becomes President. In particular, he will withdraw forces from Iraq and then, about halfway through his term, be in the position of having to plan the re-invasion the country in order to expel either the Iranians or Al Qaeda forces. He will either refuse to make such plans, in which case his Presidency will founder on the damage done by Iranian or Al Qaeda control of Iraq, or he will make them and suffer Cyrus Vance-like defections of his own former allies.

In the process, his failure will tar all conservativism in America with the assumption of isolationism, and after the Democrats win the White House in 2012, it may be another 12 years before the Republicans win another Presidential election, again on the Carter analogy. So I very much would hope that Ron Paul did not win the Presidency in 2008; I would like to see a Democrat make these foreign policy mistakes (or even better yet, win the war).

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

We're not going to agree on this.

Let's say that we pull all US troops out of Iraq and both Al Qaeda and the Iranians move into the power vacuum. So what?!? (Now, I think it's a horrible mistake because we will have handed a victory on a silver platter to Islamic fundamentalism, but we did that back when we invaded Iraq in the first place.)

In what way is the national security of the United States threatened by giving Iraq back to the Iraqis? Or letting the place descend into a horrible mess punctuated by the occasional free-fire zone defending an American military base.

I'd much rather that the Republicans never win an election in the United States again, unless they get off their duff and impeach Georgie the First prior to the end of the year. But I don't think of Ron Paul as a spoiler -- I think of him as a viable candidate in his own right, who will veto the daylights out of everything that comes out of Congress and force cross-aisle compromise to override his vetoes. We might actually see some decent law for once.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Let's say that we pull all US troops out of Iraq and both Al Qaeda and the Iranians move into the power vacuum. So what?!?

Millions of Iraqis die with your "so what" ringing in their ears. But I'll buy your premise that Little Brown People Don't Matter, for the sake of argument.

In what way is the national security of the United States threatened by giving Iraq back to the Iraqis?

Since when were Al Qaeda or Iran "the Iraqis?"

However, the conquest of Iraq either by Iran (the likeliest outcome if we pull out) would rather directly threaten the United States of America, by handing over much of the world's oil supplies to a Terrorist Power, which would then be ideally positioned to dominate Arabia and hence most of the world's oil supplies. The vast financial base of support this would create would enable the Terrorists to escalate their attacks by whole orders of magnitude.

Is that enough of a threat to America's security for you? Or to St. Ron Paul?

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

You have convicted the Iraq War out of your own mouth.

Saddam Hussein, for his many and gravehttp://www.livejournal.com/talkpost_do.bml#
[other] sins for which he will certainly burn in Hell, did a good job of keeping terrorism OUT of Iraq and did not contribute to the Islamic world terrorist network. Iraq served as a buffer state between Iran and the rest of the Middle East, with a powerful military that was enough to beat Iran several times.

Modern-day Iraq is full of terrorism. Not to mention American soldiers who make great targets. Of course, they often shoot back :) Iraq does not have the kind of military that could resist an Iranian invasion.

>> Let's say that we pull all US troops out of Iraq and both Al Qaeda and the Iranians move into the power vacuum. So what?!?

> Millions of Iraqis die with your "so what" ringing in their ears. But I'll buy your premise that Little Brown People Don't Matter, for the sake of argument.

We have demonstrated time and time again that the United States does not care if millions of people die, as long as it's not blocking something in our national interest. See Africa. I think the actual death toll in Iraq would be tens of thousands, but hey, that many have been killed in the insurgency, so where's the difference.

You also might want to get your racism checked. It's spinning out of alignment.

>> In what way is the national security of the United States threatened by giving Iraq back to the Iraqis?

> Since when were Al Qaeda or Iran "the Iraqis?"

If the Iraqis can't chase out Al Qaeda (which is neither local, nor supported by the majority of Iraqis), they have no claim to be a nation state at all, let alone ready for self-governance. Even the weak government of the Taliban _could_ have chased out Bin Laden, if they wished.

Saddam was doing a good job of keeping Iran out until we took his regime down around his ears. There is a difference between Iranian influence and outright invasion. I don't think more Iranian influence in Iraq would serve the US national interest . . . but I don't see it as a grave threat to our national security, compared to Iranian nuclear weapons.

We also have a great precedent for smashing the Iranian war machine if they do invade Iraq, as we can punish them for "invasion" just as we punished Iraq for invading Kuwait. Instead of trying to defeat hardened bunkers, etc. it is much easier to destroy a mechanized army on the move and out of its bases.

> However, the conquest of Iraq either by Iran (the likeliest outcome if we pull out) would rather directly threaten the United States of America, by handing over much of the world's oil supplies to a Terrorist Power,

Oh, baloney. Saudi Arabia controls a chunk of the world's oil supplies, and by every reasonable standard IS a Terrorist Power of the first order.

> which would then be ideally positioned to dominate Arabia and hence most of the world's oil supplies. The vast financial base of support this would create would enable the Terrorists to escalate their attacks by whole orders of magnitude.

We already did this. It's called the Iraq War. When we took out Saddam (who was an asshat of the first order, no dispute there), we created a power vacuum in Iraq which we failed to fill.

This is the present breeding ground for terrorism and insurgency that is Iraq.

The various anti-American terrorist groups have a battlefield, a recruiting ground, and a cause celebre that allows them to get large amounts of money from supporters all over the world. Including your President Bush's beloved Islamic Center and the Saudi Arabian oil regime!

> Is that enough of a threat to America's security for you? Or to St. Ron Paul?

Saint? Now there's an insult for you.

I'd rather deal with direct threats to the national security of the United States, such as a President who doesn't know what separation of powers is and commits us to an unwise war with unpalatable options, claiming authority to do so from a "use of force" authorization five years and a major House election old; an Attorney General who doesn't know what torture is; and a Vice President who claims to be above both the Congress and the courts.

Then we can deal with comparatively minor threats from overseas.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

You have convicted the Iraq War out of your own mouth.

I think that it was a mistake to start it if we weren't willing to take the measures needed to rapidly resolve the war. Having said that, I think it would be an even worse mistake for us to pull out now, leaving bloody chaos, demoralizing our allies and encouraging our enemies around the world.

I don't think more Iranian influence in Iraq would serve the US national interest . . . but I don't see it as a grave threat to our national security, compared to Iranian nuclear weapons.

The Iranian conquest of Iran will give them more resources which they can then use to obtain nuclear weapons faster and in greater quantities. It will also position Iran to conquer the rest of the Gulf and thus gain control of the majority of the world's oil supply.

This is not a "comparatively minor" threat.