The war in Iraq has been a fiasco. Americans want out of Iraq, and they want out of Iraq now. To Ron Paul and Ron Paul’s supporters, Iraq is the perfect example of why the United States should not intervene in other countries’ politics. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist and wants a small government. He barely registers in the polls, but raised $4.2 million in one day and is the most popular candidate on the Internet. The policies of Ron Paul are dangerous, and the people who support him need to get off their computers and find a real candidate.
The world felt the same way after World War I. We saw the death and destruction that resulted from the war, and decided it was time to let things go and worry only about ourselves. Former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain is probably the most infamous proponent of is idea. Nazi Germany was rising and Hitler was on the move, but that was not Britain’s problem. Well, as we learned, it became Britain’s problem, and had the country intervened earlier – as it should have – millions of lives may have been saved. Had Ron Paul’s politics been popular in the 1940s, Germany would control the world. Had they been popular during the Cold War, most of the world would be under Communist rule. Had they existed during the 1990s, Iraq would have weapons of mass destruction, and the Serbs in Bosnia would be completely wiped out. Intervention is necessary in American politics as well as the rest of the world.
So now I am guessing Ron Paul supporters are going to say, “But 9/11 would never have happened if we hadn’t intervened in the Middle East.” All of you are absolutely wrong – especially if you support Ron Paul’s line, “I am not an isolationist, just a non-interventionalist.”
Ron Paul believes strongly in trade. Yes, the terrorists may hate us because we support Israel and have troops in Saudi Arabia. However, they hate us even more because wherever they go, they hear American music, see ads for American movies and see American corporations. They hate America and any images of America. They hate American culture and what it represents. We are dealing with irrational people and nothing we do will please them. They need to be stopped, and to not get involved is to allow al-Qaeda and similar groups to overrun the Middle East, forcing a good portion of the world to live under a totalitarian government that does not respect the rights of men or women.
I know a handful of Democrats switching over to support Ron Paul because of his foreign policy beliefs. However, his domestic policies stand against everything Democrats support. Ron Paul wants virtually no government, or no funds to have a government. He wants to get rid of the IRS and income taxes. The IRS collected $1.3 trillion in income taxes last year, after returns. The projected budget for 2008 is a little over $1 trillion, not including Social Security or Medicare, which have separate taxes. Eliminating this tax would basically eliminate the federal government and its ability to pay back debts to other countries. Everything would have to be privatized. There would be no Dept. of Education, State Dept., Dept. of Justice, Dept. of Transportation, etc. And if he does want these things to exist after his proposition to get rid of income taxes, then I hope you expect to see a high rise in property and sales taxes. So what would Ron Paul’s domestic politics look like throughout American history? There would be no New Deal, no Great Society and no freeways, bridges or roads. Federal civil rights legislation would have never passed, and financial aid for college would be nonexistent.
Ron Paul is a dangerous force in American politics. He appeals to the people that truly believe the best government is one not governing at all. It amazes me his greatest support comes from college students. I thought we were better educated. Ron Paul is the demagogue in the group, and I hope the people who fund his presidential run soon realize this man would destroy our system of government and everything we stand for.
aka: Why Poli Sci majors should re-think their career choice
this piece basically argues that WAR, pre-emptive or otherwise and based on false intelligence, should be an acceptable foreign policy tool.
This article is so full of historical half truths and myths that I don’t know where to start. To begin with, the writer’s flawed assumptions about World Wars I and II. The world did not attempt to go into an isolationist shell, as he spins it. There was the Kellog-Briand Pact to limit Naval armaments. There was the League of Nations, the international body that would mediate disputes. All of these globalist and interventionist efforts utterly failed to stop World War II. With regards to World War II, do I need to remind him that the United States remained neutral… Read more »
Re: previous two commentsFirst I will address the first comment. What is with all this bashing of my major? you have done it, Dennis Prager has done it. I have taken two political science classes so far, and they have, in no means influenced this piece and have had little, if any influence on my political beliefs (if they did, my Poli Sci seven class would have taught my to agree with the opponents of this piece). The first line of the piece is" Iraq has been a Fiasco." I never argue that we should go to war on faulty… Read more »
World War II could not have "been avoided" if Britain and other countries waged war with Germany in 1938 instead of 1939. It would have just started the war a bit earlier. The writer does get one thing right in his reply when he mentions that the Versailles Treaty unfairly blamed Germany. This one sided sham of a treaty was largely what led to World War II. But then the writer fails to mention our belligerent policies against Japan, ie the cutting off of oil and scrap metal to the Japanese Empire. With no source of needed resources, Japan was… Read more »
you believe Iraq had WMDs?
nevermind. political "science" is the right path for you. we don’t need anymore insane people in the physics dept.
dude, your slamming Ron by comparing it to ww2 which WAS a DIFFERENT situation sense(it was declared) Hitler conquered all of Europe(continent) and “actually” had a chance(prayer) of conquering the world. Who ever wrote this article fails to realize the “REAL” reason that terrorists hate the U.S and more are created every day. Its not because of absurd reasons like that they hate American music, movies, or American corporations (that don’t make anything in America anymore anyway instead china & others) just like your typical car mechanic from Wisconsin with no criminal record besides jay walking doesn’t want to travel… Read more »
And by the way when it comes to totalitarianism when our country the U.S. is totalitarian that to me is a problem because the terrorists are evil and authoritarian as well and the solution to authoritarianism is not to seek death in self destructive methods to freedom & safety here which is crazy and what we are doing. Rather death to tyrannical terrorists without loosing freedom and safety here. The definition of crazy is doing something over and over again and expecting different results.