Ron Paul Cuts His Own Throat

[Mike Renzulli]

I have to admit I am not the biggest fan of Ron Paul. But a statement he made goes to show not only how naive he is about foreign policy but how idiotic his logic is. Due to the early attention he is getting about another Presidential run, Paul was recently quoted in the press as saying that he would not have ordered the assassination of Osama bin Laden [1].

While being questioned on a radio talk show, Paul elaborated by saying that we didn't get Pakistan's permission therefore the legality of such an operation was questionable since we violated the country's sovreignty. Never mind that bin Laden declared war on the U.S. in 1998 and later stated it was justified to kill Americans. Almost the entire government of Pakistan is friendly to Al-Quaeda and it was recently revealed that personel in the Pakistani government were alleged to have assisted bin Laden[2]. Possibly within the ISI which is the country's intelligence agency [3].

Like George Smith rightly pointed out bin Laden was a smug, self-righteous murderer who got what he deserved. With a statement like this and his asserting terrorism is the result of U.S. foreign policy (which it certainly is not) I think it's clear that Ron Paul is not fit to be President of the U.S.

1) http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110512/pl_dailycaller/ronpaulsayshewouldnothaveorderedbinladenkill_1

2) http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/05/pervez_musharraf_admits_pakist.html

3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/pakistan-spy-chief-offers-to-resign-after-bin-laden-killing/2011/05/13/AFDbBv2G_story.html

Edited May 13, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[9thdoctor]

I mentioned this here:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10564&view=findpost&p=135120

but I think it got buried in that thread. There was a suicide bombing today in Pakistan, those claiming responsibility say it was retaliation for bin Laden’s killing.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/13/police-68-killed-bombings-nw-pakistan/

It seems Pakistan was going to get hit whether they were involved in the raid or not. Ron Paul deserves credit for standing on principle, but he’s arguing against an action that most Americans see as a success. Pundits can easily say that if we’d done it his way, bin Laden would have gotten away, and you can’t prove them wrong.

[Mike Renzulli]

He stood on his principles that much is certain. However, this is the problem with many libertarians like him and those that follow him. They take consistency as an intrinsic value (i.e. consistent for the sake of being consistent). As a result they take their logic to an illogical extreme. Paul's opposition to assassinating bin Laden is an example.

I mentioned this here:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10564&view=findpost&p=135120

but I think it got buried in that thread. There was a suicide bombing today in Pakistan, those claiming responsibility say it was retaliation for bin Laden’s killing.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/13/police-68-killed-bombings-nw-pakistan/

It seems Pakistan was going to get hit whether they were involved in the raid or not. Ron Paul deserves credit for standing on principle, but he’s arguing against an action that most Americans see as a success. Pundits can easily say that if we’d done it his way, bin Laden would have gotten away, and you can’t prove them wrong.

[9thdoctor]

They take consistency as an intrinsic value (i.e. consistent for the sake of being consistent). As a result they take their logic to an illogical extreme.

Say what? Where's Ralph Waldo Emerson when we need him?

[Greybird]

[...] They take consistency as an intrinsic value (i.e., consistent for the sake of being consistent). As a result they take their logic to an illogical extreme.

Say what? Where's Ralph Waldo Emerson when we need him?

[...] Some people [...] might say: "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." They got it from a very little mind, Emerson.

— Ayn Rand, speaking at West Point, 6 March 1974

Quoted in Philosophy: Who Needs It, p. 5 (hardcover)

I couldn't resist noting the irony of Rand's demurral with the original poster's point, even though she quotes Emerson (in "Self-Reliance") out of proper context. (As denoted by the actual sentence, "A foolish consistency [...]")

[sjw]

I like Ron Paul but I agree it's a blunder. There's no such thing as State sovereignty, there's only individual sovereignty.

Shayne

[studiodekadent]

I agree Paul should not have said this, and I do endorse getting Bin Laden.

However, I don't necessarily think this means Paul's basic non-interventionism is necessarily wrong or that it discredits the idea of blowback (i.e. that a significant portion of anti-American extremism in the middle east is due to anger at American interventions in the region).

[Richard Wiig]

It seems Pakistan was going to get hit whether they were involved in the raid or not.

Pakistan is constantly being hit. Has been for the past umpteen years. Whether Bin Laden has been killed or not is pretty much irrelevant in that regard.

[9thdoctor]

I couldn't resist noting the irony of Rand's demurral with the original poster's point, even though she quotes Emerson (in "Self-Reliance") out of proper context. (As denoted by the actual sentence, "A foolish consistency [...]")

Indeed, but Rand would say “check your premises” when consistency fails. Either you’re applying the wrong principle, or your principle is wrong. In Ron Paul’s case, on the bin Laden question, he’s applying the same principle to Pakistan that we would apply to, say, Canada.

[Selene]

I couldn't resist noting the irony of Rand's demurral with the original poster's point, even though she quotes Emerson (in "Self-Reliance") out of proper context. (As denoted by the actual sentence, "A foolish consistency [...]")

Indeed, but Rand would say "check your premises" when consistency fails. Either you're applying the wrong principle, or your principle is wrong. In Ron Paul's case, on the bin Laden question, he's applying the same principle to Pakistan that we would apply to, say, Canada.

Precisely. I know he is not that naive to believe that Pakistan is not a cauldron of competing constituencies. He should be wise enough to deflect those questions and turn them into positive statements about his positions.

Adam

[Reidy]

As long as we're talking about Emerson, his definition of consistency is: "a reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them" - i.e. a preference for past experience or received opinion over independent judgement. I wonder if Rand ever read the essay.

Paul's remark may not hurt his chances all that much. Obama said (in some local Oak Park paper) at the time of the attack that the US was at fault, and look where it got him.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Reidy

[Kat]

I really like Ron Paul a lot, but I think he was dead wrong on this one. I thought nobody could be weaker in foreign policy than Obama and he just proved me wrong. I wish someone would enter the presidential race that I could actually vote for and is capable of beating Obama. Why is that so hard???

Who is John Galt?

Kat

[sjw]

I have seen some interviews with Ron Paul on this, and his explanations are credible. He notes that Pakistan has worked with us several times in the past with good results, so there's no reason to suppose that they wouldn't continue to work with us. Perhaps he's right, perhaps he's wrong, but he's definitely not wildly wrong. He's definitely not 2008 bailout wrong, that's for sure. Yet I'm sure everyone will still drag his name through the mud over it, even though every other alternative would have done a thousand different things that were much worse than Ron Paul would have done on different issues.

Shayne

[Robert Campbell]

As long as we're talking about Emerson, his definition of consistency is: "a reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them" - i.e. a preference for past experience or received opinion over independent judgement. I wonder if Rand ever read the essay.

Peter,

I'll bet she didn't.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

If you're going to be a pacifist, declare that all war should be avoided, regardless of the cost.

If you favor only war against invaders of your country, declare that only defensive wars, under a strict standard of defense, should be permitted.

If you're going to be an anarchist, don't pretend that anyone's actions should be compliant with international law, be the international law real or imagined—or that they should respect the sovereignty of any government. Anarchy and sovereignty don't mix.

I don't understand why Ron Paul would have any use for left-wing transnational pseudo-legalism, but he's been bitten by that bug.

Robert Campbell

[sjw]

If you're going to be a pacifist, declare that all war should be avoided, regardless of the cost.

If you favor only war against invaders of your country, declare that only defensive wars, under a strict standard of defense, should be permitted.

If you're going to be an anarchist, don't pretend that anyone's actions should be compliant with international law, be the international law real or imagined—or that they should respect the sovereignty of any government. Anarchy and sovereignty don't mix.

I don't understand why Ron Paul would have any use for left-wing transnational pseudo-legalism, but he's been bitten by that bug.

Robert Campbell

This misrepresents his view at least somewhat. His position is that the slap in the face to Pakistan was unnecessary, that they have cooperated before and would have been expected to do so here. I know there are contrary arguments to this as well (saying that Pakistan was harboring bin Laden, that officials knew he was there), but I don't know enough details to say who's right.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

If you're going to be a pacifist, declare that all war should be avoided, regardless of the cost.

If you favor only war against invaders of your country, declare that only defensive wars, under a strict standard of defense, should be permitted.

If you're going to be an anarchist, don't pretend that anyone's actions should be compliant with international law, be the international law real or imagined—or that they should respect the sovereignty of any government. Anarchy and sovereignty don't mix.

I don't understand why Ron Paul would have any use for left-wing transnational pseudo-legalism, but he's been bitten by that bug.

Robert Campbell

This misrepresents his view at least somewhat. His position is that the slap in the face to Pakistan was unnecessary, that they have cooperated before and would have been expected to do so here. I know there are contrary arguments to this as well (saying that Pakistan was harboring bin Laden, that officials knew he was there), but I don't know enough details to say who's right.

Shayne

I'm afraid Pakistan has been continually slapping our American faces by covert support of the Taliban.

--Brant

[9thdoctor]

I'm afraid Pakistan has been continually slapping our American faces by covert support of the Taliban.

Sunday's 60 Minutes had a segment on this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7366126n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox

[BaalChatzaf]

I'm afraid Pakistan has been continually slapping our American faces by covert support of the Taliban.

Sunday's 60 Minutes had a segment on this.

http://www.cbsnews.c...y;storyMediaBox

Those god damned Viagra ads! Its enough to make one blush.

I tried it once. I blushed, I went blind, and hair grew from my palms.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited May 18, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[sjw]

So maybe Ron Paul is right all along after all:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/asia/20pakistan.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28132.htm

Bin Laden was just a man, China is a nation. And Ron Paul's strategy just might have worked -- without bringing about this new state of things. It wouldn't be the first time his vision and judgment exceeded that of the neocons.

Shayne

[Selene]

So maybe Ron Paul is right all along after all:

http://www.nytimes.c...ner=rss&emc=rss

http://www.informati...rticle28132.htm

Bin Laden was just a man, China is a nation. And Ron Paul's strategy just might have worked -- without bringing about this new state of things. It wouldn't be the first time his vision and judgment exceeded that of the neocons.

Shayne

Basically correct.

China is managing it's power in it's sphere of influence. It is leveraging Pakistan against it's local enemy, India. India is becoming an equal power to China and will exceed China's population, particularly amongst the emerging working age groups within a decade. Economically, India is also poised to overtake China. Therefore, China will continue to use Pakistan as it's primary regional buffer to India.

It will be quite interesting whether China's continued extermination of the Muslim population in the Southwestern part of China will become a sticking point to the Pakistani Taliban and other Pakistani Muslim power tribes.

Adam

The world is still one big Risk game

[sjw]

Adam

The world is still one big Risk game

Since when did you start copying Brant's posting style?

Shayne

I thought I was the only one who copied Brant ;)

[Selene]

Adam

The world is still one big Risk game

Since when did you start copying Brant's posting style?

Shayne

I thought I was the only one who copied Brant ;)

Actually, for quite a while., but not always. lol