Ron Paul is at it again…
Now if you’ve read my work over you’ll know that I supported the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan because I believed they were the right things to do. Obviously they were carried out by morons who didn’t have a plan. But just because something is carried out badly does not mean the initial act was not a good thing. There is a difference between ends and means. Yes because they were carried out badly the whole thing was a failure.
Now Ron Paul seems to be attacking the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan…and apparently Iran because our argument for Iraq about defense from weapons of mass destruction was wrong. Now I never really liked the argument about WMD’s because it is not the real reason we should go into countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. We should be opposed to countries like this because they are an affront the very nature of humanity. They are tyrannies. They have no respect for the natural rights every human being is granted and every single decent human is opposed to such behavior. Now most of us do not have the power to do anything about this, but governments do. And governments, all government (I remind you that there were quite a few countries in the coalitions that invaded both nations), have a responsibility to protect natural human rights of their citizens…and if you accept the idea that “all men are created equal” (I think that’s in some U.S. document somewhere) then we have a moral responsibility to defend them everywhere…rights do not end at the border.
Tyranny is evil, possibly the greatest evil. As I laid out a very lengthy argument in Republicans and Reincarnation, it must be opposed—and to not oppose such an evil is to condone it. Which is what Ron Paul seems to want to do. He even wouldn’t have invaded Germany to stop the Holocaust…there is no evil great enough for Ron Paul to care. (And you’ll notice he doesn’t care about the ethics because he includes Rumsfeld’s argument that the Iraqi dictatorship was “chopping people’s heads off”…but hey it’s not our country why should we care.)
Oh notice also how he seems to imply that Iran’s desire for a nuke is a fabrication…even though he didn’t say that when he said they should be allowed to have a nuke. So which is it? That they aren’t seeking one, in which case we shouldn’t care and he should have told them that at all the debates (which makes him a coward for not stating what he believed in a forum designed to tell us what he believes) …or is that a country of thugs and butchers is seeking a nuke and he sees no problem with that (but won’t bring up that they actually are building a nuke because even his cowardly pacifist voters might think twice if Iran actually had a nuke…and he care more about votes than actually standing for something)? Which is it Ron? Because it can’t be both if you have any sense of right and wrong.
Or is it like how you get millions upon millions of pork for your district put into spending bills, but then vote against the bill, knowing it will pass, and condemn pork spending? You know that you’re a demagogue without moral or ethics who has no problems with dictators because you share their rock hard belief in say and do anything if it gets you power.
And may I also say that listing the deaths of soldiers is just disrespectful. These are men and women who joined, voluntarily, because they wanted to do something good. They wanted to bring freedom to the oppressed. If you want to blame Bush and Obama and their administrations for handling the wars badly and getting an unnecessary number of soldiers killed, please do so…but do not taint their memories by suggesting they did not believe in the mission itself. They choose to join the military because they believed in something and using their deaths to fight the very thing they believed in is sick.
But go ahead vote for Paul. Vote for 4 years of letting butcher kill innocents the world over while we let the world burn.