Congressman Allen West put it fairly succinctly recently when he said: “When I was looking at the debate Thursday night [a week ago], and a certain candidate for president [Ron Paul] stood there and said he didn’t see any problem with Iran getting a nuclear device because everybody has one, I’ve got to tell you, that’s not the kind of guy you need to have sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”
The problem with the view of Ron Paul and his supporters is that avoiding another war is their top priority, when making sure Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon should be the top priority. Nobody wants to have to bomb another country, but even more than that nobody should want to see Iran armed with the world's most deadly weapon. Nobody wants to use military force, but there is no reason to a priori take options off the table. It simply is far too dangerous to gamble on allowing an avowed enemy of the United States obtain a nuclear weapon when that country is the world's top sponsor of suicidal Islamoterror, providing support for the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, has sworn to wipe Israel off the map, to bring about the downfall of America, and is run by fanatical fundamentalist Muslims. Ron Paul simply does not take the threat seriously because he is so committed to his isolationist ideology that he simply does not care whether Iran gets the bomb at all and thinks the biggest problem is not a foreign threat like an Iranian bomb but rather American foreign policy itself. In his mind he thinks he can make our country into Fortress America, but that is foolhardy to the extreme. Iran is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has already been found in non-compliance.
Here is but one example from only the last month that ought to alert people and actually make it quite obvious, despite the fact that it is not comprehensible to Ron Paul, why Iran cannot be allowed under any circumstances to become a nuclear State: http://blogs.abcnews.com/t
We have no guarantee that a fundamentalist Islamic rogue regime as radical as Iran will utilize or not utilize its nuclear weapon as has China, Russia, or the other members of the nuclear club. There is no basis to believe they will behave like those other nations, and there is no rational reason to gamble on that being the case. What we do for sure know is their record, and it's far more than just words alone which happen to be quite plain about their intentions, but to know the terrorist acts this government is behind and groups this regime supports is to realize the danger. The one link from a recent story I provided shows that.
I'm also not sure that US boots would even need to be on the ground in the same way as in Iraq if the mission were to be elimination of a nuclear weapons program rather than regime change. Avoiding war is certainly a worthy goal, but not avoiding it at all or any cost. And Ron Paul is even worse than that. He does not even recognize that Iran presents a threat and significant issue for global and American security at all. He is so caught up in his ideology that he has blinders on to seeing any foreign policy threat that cannot in his head be responded to by simply ignoring it and having America becoming an isolationist nation. It's naive in the extreme, it's wrongheaded, and it is far too dangerous a mindset for anyone that wants to be the Commander in Chief of the United States of America.
Ron Paul and his supporters pretend as if Iran's only interest is being feared or acting in self-defense from outside nations, as if their support for Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, all stems from a desire to be protected from the big bad U.S.A. Give me a break, the jihadists and their backers are only worried about being "feared" or defending themselves from America? That's utterly ridiculous. And other countries in the region like Pakistan are not currently ruled by Islamic radicals like the Mullahs in Iran, and yes, it would be a huge threat if Pakistan were to fall into the total control of those elements. A Ron Paul, however, would probably say that it is none of our business too. Iran is already controlled by the nutters, by backers and believers in suicidal Islamic terrorism, Iran being the chief sponsor and supporter of suicidal Islamic terrorism. Not seeing that country standing above others as a threat if it were to obtain nuclear weapons is patently absurd.
Iran is the most pressing and obvious example of the reason not to ever vote for Ron Paul. But Ron Paul's "views," his ideological blinders to foreign threats from his extreme "non-interventionism," manifests itself in other ways as well that are troubling. But the fact is that Iran's involvement with, funding of, close ties with, Al Qaeda, and countless other jihadist groups, some of whom Iran controls outright, is unchanged. I truly don't understand how a supporters of Ron Paul can look at Iran's record and not see the obvious threat that the Iranian regime armed with nuclear weapons represents.
Iran is engaged in a nuclear program. The objective of eliminating a nuclear program militarily need not be the same as the objective of regime change, should it come to that. I don't think we can suddenly become a Fortress America and overnight or even with time all our enemies, and particular this enemy, would disappear. That's nonsense, and does not understand the extent of the ideology and threat. They came to our shores and attacked New York City, lest that be forgotten. He would be an awful president because he would have the power of a Commander in Chief. And the fact is that we already are involved militarily at this point, and once you are in you cannot trust a Paul to just "end involvement" overnight without disastrous consequences for the countries we are in and for the U.S. It is Chamberlinian to think that if only we were more friendly with Iran and her terrorist allies and if only our policies were different then we would have "peace in our time" with this form of religious extremism. The problem with Paul is you can't take the chance of his failures, whether resulting from his unwillingness to virtually ever consider necessary action, or willingness to end action already engaged in without contemplating the consequences, because they would be too great and too dangerous.
Does Ron Paul not want to end all involvement abroad overnight? I believe he has essentially said that. Did he not say he could not care less if Iran gets nukes? I believe he clearly said that at the last debate. Is his response to any threat abroad that it is of our making and if only we withdraw and do not intervene all will become well? That's what I understand him to be saying constantly. Overall, even though he does not use the phrase, he has a mindset that we can be a fortress America and retreat to the point that nobody will bother us anymore. It's naivete, and I think it's a result of ideological purity that would leave us all less safe. The idea that we should not get involved in wars haphazardly is rather obvious, but he goes well beyond that and to pretend he does not is rather silly. If you feel differently, I think you are listening to a different Ron Paul than I do.
Tweet
Thursday, August 25, 2011
One More Reason Never To Vote For Ron Paul: He Ignored The Iranian Nuclear Threat At Republican Primary Debates
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)
No comments:
Post a Comment