Introspections

http://www.geekarmy.com/geekblog/politics/top-10-things-americans-want-but-cant-have/Intente y mire la rueda del casinos gratis en relación a la tabla del roulette.

http://www.geekarmy.com/geekblog/politics/the-real-threat-dialogue-between-the-left-and-right/

I like Ron Paul, but often when I listen to him, I can’t help but think about how much better he could be. Whether it’s the candidates’ debate or appearing on Bill Maher, he makes claims that although convenient, just simply aren’t accurate. The claim he is most fond of is that traditional Republicanism is non-interventionist. As proof of this claim he cites Eisenhower and Nixon’s platforms of disengagement from Korea and Vietnam respectively. Furthermore he mentions Reagan’s wisdom in pulling troops out of Lebanon, which is supposed to be evidence that Reagan learned from the mistake of foreign intervention and adopted a more conservative foreign policy. He could well be saying these things in order to ingratiate himself with loyal Republicans who want a flattering self-image, or he could actually believe it; either way these statements are false and it’s important for the public to know this.

Let’s look carefully at his examples. Eisenhower was more-or-less in favour of non-intervention but nevertheless was given to “fighting Communism” wherever he saw it. This meant interventions in Iran, Guatemala, Congo, El Salvador and Cuba; not to mention setting the stage for Vietnam. He can hardly be described as non-interventionist even if his transgressions were minor compared to some of the people to follow him.

To claim Nixon was “non-interventionist” borders on the absurd. Yes, he campaigned to get the United States out of Vietnam (a pledge he never lived up to) but this hardly captures the essence of his presidency. To name a few of Nixon’s interventions: the Dominican Republic, Chile, Uruguay, El Salvador, Cambodia and Laos. Hundreds of thousands of people died because of Nixon and Kissinger’s “non-interventions” without mentioning their ridiculous domestic policies that directly contradict most of what Ron Paul stands for.

As for Ronald Reagan; did you know the United States is the only country in the world to ever be successfully prosecuted for terrorism by the World Court? Do you know why? The Nicaraguan civil war is seriously worth understanding in order to put modern relations with Latin America into context. It depicts quite viscerally, the depths to which American power will go to have its way. Through covert action, Reagan was able to hide his dealings with the Contras from the American people and support a group of people who committed all kinds of outrageous barbarity. But this was just part of Reagan’s Latin America blood-orgy. Interventions in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras were disgustingly brutal. The documentation is readily available for those interested in reading about crimes that will make your stomach turn. These historical facts were also central to the skepticism of the Bush’s intentions by the anti-war left and right.

What Ron Paul either doesn’t want to say, or doesn’t know to say, is that citing any American president in the last 60 years as embodying an ideal we should strive for is a step in the wrong direction. Paul would do well to listen to fellow libertarian Noam Chomsky when he says:

“If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.” 

And, like Paul’s message to Giuliani at the candidates’ debate, that statement can easily be supported. Are you listening Paul?

jordan [at] introspections.org

License under Creative Commons.

I am probably not going to be updating this site very often but when I do, it will be profound.