Ron Paul’s Bizarre Exhortation to "Feel Empathy for Iran"

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 <a href=””></a>

(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.




22 thoughts on “Ron Paul’s Bizarre Exhortation to "Feel Empathy for Iran"

  1. it would be lovely if leaving the rest of the world alone would guarantee that we'd be left alone, but it just doesn't work that way. people need to grow up.

  2. @Hack, thanks! Oh, I know conservatives don't subscribe to that myopic, self-aggrandizing, thoroughly insulated worldview; it's leftists and some (definitely not all) libertarians. 😉

    @Randy, precisely.

    @Kerry, heh, you have a way of saying in one sentence what I take paragraphs to say. *hugs*

    @Teresa, thanks! I think “naive” is a really good word for it. There is a certain naivete in thinking that way.

  3. I disagree. I am a Ron Paul supporter, and I consider myself civil and rational. I'm trying my best to look at this objectively, but I just can't see Ron Paul's message on Iran likened to some sort of superiority complex. I think there is some empathy when it comes to us not letting the Iranian people establish their own leaders and government. In the clip linked above, I don't think there was one condescending statement as you suggest, but rather complete respect towards the Iranian people as they are being put in hairy situations. Let me pose this question, what do you think of the former head of the CIA Bin Laden tracking team, Michael Scheuer's endorsement of Ron Paul as well as his voiced opinions about Paul being right on his assessments of the middel east and our foreign policy? Surely we can't just ignore it? Also, I'm trying to be respectful here, I am trying to have an honest conversation, but at what point is it counter-productive to use the term “leftist” when it comes to any foreign policy that challenges our current policy? Obama's foreign policy is no different than President Bush's was or Romney's would be if he were in office, so I don't believe there are any establishment candidates or supporters that would argue with you.

  4. Hard to game, so I just have some thoughts:
    – No one is going to give the enemy the exact plan he/she has for anything. Israel said today any attack plan for Iraq is a long way off. I take that as it could happen next week.
    – I feel we need Carrier Battle Groups in positions to respond to any potential threat with overwhelming air power as well as all forms of lethality that a Carrier group has.
    – I agree with Paul that we shouldn't have our sons and daughters roaming around in the sandbox or German/Japan/Turkey for that matter. What does that get us? It's not going to stop Iran form getting a bomb all the way down to some group in some rogue country devising an attack plan and carrying it out somewhere. Afghanistan will never be a unified country. Karzai often sides with the taliban. What is the point?
    How would boots on the ground anywhere stop any rogue nation from launching missiles? They wouldn't. Bring them home and put them on our own wide open borders. Especially the disgustingly brutal Mexican border/drug cartel murder machines.
    -Paul wants to maintain our level of military might by not wasting people and resources in places where there is nothing to be gained.
    -obama on the other hand wants to DEEPLY slice and dice the military starting in 2012, while our people are moving targets in Afghanistan for another 2 years.

    So, until a hear a convincing argument that makes its case that our boots on the ground in the sandbox have any effect of significant threats to America, I'm leaning heavily in Paul's direction on foreign policy.

    Rome's over-reaching and complacency was a big part of their downfall.

  5. PPS, I just sent an RNC request for money “to defeat the evil obama” (righteous goal) back with the note “You don't need money, you need a conservative candidate”

    I am feeling strongly, that a Newt with all his problems and especially the Freddie/Fannie 1.6 million connection, or a One Percenter 15% Tax Rate Mittens Romney cannot beat obama in this election.

    Like John McLame, neither has the kind of support, let alone excitement, that will get enough voters to the polls to defeat the dems with all they've learned to do to grab an election.

    I'm not saying Paul would either. I'm saying that until we get a strong conservative candidate that doesn't leak oil like a sieve we are screwed.

  6. PPPS – I see nothing wrong with Paul feeling empathy for Iran as long as he (and he did state) maintains the stance that we'd “annihilate them in 40 minutes” [if they did something grievous enough to deserve such].

    How could someone be constitutional and not protect America like a newborn? I'm not getting why people think he'd put us at risk somehow.

  7. @Supergranny, me, too. Or he would if he had a chance in the world of ever being president. Thankfully for us and the world, he does not.

    @Kerry, aw, thanks for that 🙂

    @Allen Riddle, Paul's stated repeatedly that we don't need to worry about Iran because we can wipe them out in 40 minutes. That doesn't strike you as a “superiority complex”? They can't touch us, but we can annihilate them?

    I don't really put stock in any endorsements and could care less if anyone in the military or CIA (FBI, whatever) support Ron Paul. There are many who support BO, too. Being in the CIA (at whatever level and on whatever cases they work) doesn't make them right.

    Paul's foreign policies are so far to the extreme right that they practically loop around to the extreme left. I don't think of the political spectrum as a line but as a circle, and Paul's waaaaay over there on this.

    BO's foreign policy is strikingly different than President Bush's. Bush supported Israel. Bush did not alienate and insult Great Britain and our other allies. Bush would never ever have pulled our missile defense from Poland. Bush would never have tried to end-run military tribunals for KSM. We no longer capture and interrogate/hold enemies, we just kill them. BO orders the death of American citizens (on this I do actually agree with Ron Paul). BO went around Congress to go to war with Libya (er, not a war, a kinetic military action. Or something). BO coddles our enemies (sometimes literally hugging and bowing to them) and alienates our friends. BO puts the UN before American sovereignty, international law above our own. I could go on and on, but the fruits of what BO has sown (an incredibly unstable world, the Middle East in utter turmoil and soon being run by Islamofascists) is proof enough.

    I can't stand Romney, but you're not thinking very clearly if you honestly believe he'd be worse than or even the same as BO. Ditto Newt and Santorum. Ron Paul's foreign policy at least as bad as BO's–in different ways, perhaps, but just as disastrous, but thank God, he couldn't do much without Congress (assuming he's not full of it when he talks about the Constitution, a document BO does not respect in the slightest).

    @Kid, my friend. I'm not a fan of Paul, but I respect your ideas and points. 🙂

    One thing I will note, however, is that Rome was an Empire. We are not (no matter what that idiot Paul says). We may be going the way of Rome, but that is more in the sense of turning from our Republic to tyranny, to too many taxes and regulations, and to too little opportunity and freedom (resulting in more poverty, a shrinking middle class, etc.).

  8. Fuzzy, Ron's not perfect by any means.

    As far as Rome, I think we exhibit a lot of the same symptomatic causes for a fall. Massive apathy, massive corruption in government, over-extended financially and resource-wise, lacking family values, – % of married is at all time lows and continues to sink, all the porn, and hey, seriously, people Hugely focused on sports. It's on the radio when I drive in, people talk it all day at work, it's on the TV in the lunchroom, it's on the TV's at the lunch restaurant. Sports. Sports. Sports. People talking about sports, people talking about people who talk about sports. It's insane to me now.

  9. @Fuzzy Slippers – Thanks for responding. I do not suggest you support somebody just because of an endorsement. However, a source like Michael Scheuer is going to be far more credible than anything you hear reported from the mainstream media, and I'm suggesting we consider that. He isn't just a CIA agent, he was head of the team that had to become experts on Bin Laden.

    I can't agree that those are true differences in a foreign policy. We still fund and aide Israel, we are IN the era of going around congress to go to war with “fill in the blank.” You say BO coddles our enemies, but our enemies and allies are always changing, that in itself is a huge problem. We've been in the UN long before BO, there is an easy solution if we don't want to worry about our sovereignty, leave the UN. BO hasn't sown anything, he's just continuing the path to destruction. The middle east has been in turmoil long before islamic terrorists made their way into the mainstream media, and understanding and acknowledging the history of the middle east is a great step 1 in improving the situation.

    I'm deeply disturbed at the mainstream medias treatment and approach on Ron Paul. It should be obvious whether or not you are a Ron Paul supporter, you should ask “why are they doing this?”

  10. @Allen, I've already addressed your question about the CIA guy supporting Ron Paul, but from what I gather that guy's a nutter anyway and is thankfully no longer with the CIA (seems he's ensconced in some university now, espousing nutso ideas). So naw, I don't think that loon is going to sway me one bit (except that I feel mildly sorry for him).

    Not true foreign policy differences? Re: Israel, did you note the second banner on my page (right hand column)? I SUPPORT Israel. I'm GLAD we give aid to aid to Israel. I don't think we do ENOUGH for Israel. Israel is our ally; they have never ever been our enemy. Great Britain is our ally and has been for ages. I don't want us in the UN, either, and President Bush didn't give a rat's azz what they said; he got the approval of Congress, as in our Constitution. BO places the UN and its “needs” above America's. I'd say that's a pretty large difference. I do agree we need to get out of the UN, but I've long thought that. BO has sown plenty, and if you can't see that, then no amount of my tapping away here will change that.

    I have no idea what the mainstream media says because I don't watch them or read them except to come up with fodder for blog posts or for a laugh (Sharyl Atkisson at CBS is doing good investigative work on Fast and Furious, so I read her work). I certainly don't watch or read what they say about Ron Paul (but I do know that the far-out freaks on the progressive left love his foreign policy ideas–go read Firedoglake sometime), but you seem to be suggesting I'm incapable of thinking for myself. Take a read through my blog before you start jumping to such insulting conclusions, please.

  11. @Fuzzy,

    I never indicated or said you couldn't think for yourself and I genuinely apologize if I've come across as insulting. We just disagree about Michael Scheuer/CIA guy. The only thing I'd add is saying one is a “nutter” without objective reasoning isn't productive or compelling.

    I just think we would be better off moving away from having to worry about who is and isn't our ally. The quote “peace and commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none” resonates here.

    Something that I've been doing because I'm interested in data, facts, truth, etc, is I've been reaching out to people who live in the regions of the world around conflict by connecting and chatting via groups on Facebook (Facebook really does provide some value!). We only see what's reported by the U.S. media, so it's a way to get info direct from witnesses. From the people I've talked with (assuming they are real people), there is no doubt that we get a different version presented to us by the media. I'm curious with your opinion of what I assume is support for continuing our interventionist foreign policy, have you communicated with such people?

    One last question, as a Tea Party supporter, of the Republican candidates, who do you think would have a presidency where the national debt would shrink? We can't shrink the deficit without shrinking government or raising taxes, agreed?

  12. @Allen, no worries, I read your last paragraph/statement incorrectly, apparently. As to the CIA guy, he most certainly is a nutter (much like Ron Paul, actually), but I don't see a lot of point in stating why I think that to you (this whole post pretty much covers it). One thing I've learned through various exchanges with people is that it's very rare indeed that someone will change their opinion based on an online comment exchange, and even then, they're not going to change their entire ideology (which would be required for me to agree with Paul's insane foreign policy ideas). (and yes, I am suggesting that continuing to hammer the same things Paul says in my comment section will change nothing–I know what I think and why ;))

    It's unfortunate that you get your news only from American media; you know there are more efficient ways to get world news online than by interviewing foreigners one by one, right? And on a related note, you need to do a bit of research into Islam, particularly focus on the Koran's approval of lying to forward the cause of Islam, even to the point of pretending to be another religion or sympathetic to said nonMuslim religion (this is referred to as “dissimulation”).

    On your last point: whom do I think would lead an actual effort to reduce the debt (assuming that he had both houses of Congress to work with him, of course)? Ron Paul would do it. I have no doubt about that. Rick Santorum would do it (though I would like to hear him speak more about cutting entire departments and agencies as Paul does).

    I agree with much of what Paul says with regard to the economy and the Fed. He loses me, as I've said repeatedly, on his naive and ill- / misinformed worldview. With the world, quite literally, on the brink of a global war, the last thing we need is a wrong-headed ideologue ignoring the problem until there are nukes dropping on numerous countries, including our own.

    We can't even think about touching our debt until we get this raging deficit under control, and we can't do that until we get serious entitlement reform and a new (fair or flat) tax code. I've written quite a bit about the economy, so feel free to read back and see my thoughts on that.

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s