I have a long drive ahead of me today, but I so want to post about Ron Paul’s latest demonstration of his utter disdain and lack of respect for Iran:
Watch the latest video at &lt;a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”&gt;video.foxnews.com&lt;/a&gt;
(h/t Gateway Pundit via Breitbart TV)
This whole noninterventionist / empathy / it worked with the Soviet Union thing drives me up the wall. I can’t help but think that it’s based in the same condescension and dismissal (underestimation based in an inherent sense of superiority) that drives the far left. Yes, the same far left who spit and spew about derogatory names directed at our enemies in the Middle East and about “Islamophobia.” We all know that at its root is the sense that no one in the Middle East, country or group, should be taken as a serious threat because they . . . well, gee, they’re just some backward nation that deserves our “empathy.” After all, they all have camels and live in the desert, goes this mind-numbingly patronizing line of “thought,” what can they possibly do to us? Besides, they’re just like us, only–you know–poor and uneducated. In other words, add a they are “less than” us / we’re “better” than them, toss it with some cultural relativity and voila! a hot mess of socio-cultural and political contempt.
As one commenter at Gateway Pundit (linked above) noted, Ron Paul’s theory (and we’ve heard it before) is that we can use the same “mutually assured destruction” tactic that worked in the Cold War. After all, goes the Paul “logic,” we can annihilate Iran in 40 minutes. “Mutually assured destruction” doesn’t work when the enemies’ ideology celebrates and reveres–even requires–dying for the cause. D’oh.
And as usual, Paul gets the motivations and causes of radical Islamic terrorism wrong. Completely wrong.
Anyway, here are my comments over at GP (still linked above, and here including the snarky return-fire condescension that commenter earned, but not that person’s comments themselves, you can read those at GP, if you are so-inclined):
#18 January 14, 2012 at 9:54 am
#15 Common Sense
That’s a reactionary policy, though, and doesn’t take into account (at least) two pretty important things: one, the Middle East is now pretty much all radical Islamacists with the same goal that Iran states repeatedly (wiping Israel off the map and then destroying us, “the Great Satan”)–so do we add another 40 minutes to “annihilate” all the people in every Middle Eastern country, too? Doesn’t that strike you as slightly . . . er, nuts?; and two, how many American citizens can Iran wipe out with nukes before we can say, hey, let’s do that Ron Paul 40-minute annihilation plan?
Doesn’t sound particularly reasonable to me.
#29 January 14, 2012 at 10:54 am
#26 Common Sense?
Brainwashed? Hardly. I’ve simply sat through a few hours of Ahmadinejad’s rambling “speeches” before the G20, etc. Despite his stream-of-consciousness style of speaking, he’s actually rather clear in his ideas about both Israel, America, and the West generally. As have been a variety of Iran’s leaders dating back to 1979 (or so). But that’s not where the problems stem from between the Middle East and the U. S. (and her allies). And of course your statements about oil are insane (question: from which two countries does America import the most oil? Answer: Mexico and Canada. Following your logic, we should be warring with them? *sigh*)
You should probably read a little about the history of Islam and America’s own early confrontations with Muslim radicals, including the attacks on U. S. trading vessels that date back to the early 1800′s; hint, the U. S. didn’t even have a sea-going branch of the military then (nor even a national military force), and hadn’t “intervened” in anything off our own shores that didn’t involve our independence from England (with the help of Spain and France). You may be interested to learn, if you are capable, that the reason that Thomas Jefferson was given for the attacks on American trading ships and the slaughter of Americans was that the Koran called all Muslims to kill all non-Muslims He found that rather alarming, by the way, but he, unlike you apparently, took them at their word.
So, another appeaser (this time in the person of John Adams) agreed to pay a “tax” for our people’s safety. Unsurprisingly, the payment of a heavy tax didn’t stop the slaughters, so then when Jefferson took office, he refused to pay it (rightly, in my mind) and sent our newly-formed Marine Corps (that is pronounced “core”) to kick their butts. They did. Of course.
Now, you may take from this (and I urge you do your own research on this and to do a bit of reading about the origins of al Queda, too, do read beyond Wikipedia) that we should have just continued paying the “tax” for our right to remain Christians (or anything nonMuslim) and still trade and travel abroad (in or near Muslim countries) and that all would be well. But I would argue that’s absurd and untenable. Call me a war-monger.