| | I voted for Ron Paul.
Dr. Paul is not the ideal spokesman against foreign military adventuring--in the Middle East and elsewhere--because his religious outlook tends to encourage his adherence to ideas that at times appear "rationalistic", as Bob Bidinotto expresses it. At times, Dr. Paul does come across as one who adheres to ideas based in part on tradition and faith. But he's far more thoughtful and honest in his attempts to make sense of ideas, and in his loyalty to reason, than any of the other candidates.
A reasoned approach to making sense of today's foreign policy crises must take account of all facts that bear on the issue. But even otherwise reasonable and reflective people who post on this site, people who authentically want to uphold and defend the good, seem to, at times, disregard facts that threaten their view of the world. I refer, as always, to disturbing facts about the official story about the mass murders of 911--stubborn facts that have been carefully identified and analyzed in David Griffin's Debunking 911 Debunking. The typical reaction to the preceding sentence by war supporters is outrage, anger, and even hatred. But the facts are there for anyone with the courage to see. If what I am writing about this is true, is not the refusal to give these facts an honest reading itself a form of rationalism?
Another fact that war supporters seem to cast out of consciousness is the growing risk of mass killings of innocent Americans by Islamic terrorists using biological or nuclear weapons. The biological weapons are avaliable to these people right now, according to an article published in a US Army journal. The dangers of suitcase nukes or hazardous radioactive materials are well known. In short, it appears that terrorists motivated by twisted ideological hatred and the desire for revenge (which our foreign military adventuring has whipped up) have both the motive and the means to kill many Americans. Bombing Iran won't protect us from this growing danger, but it will increase the likelihood of a vicious retaliation through non-state paramilitary action. War supporters don't have much to say about this point. They'd prefer to believe that American "pre-emptive wars" uphold the good and protect Americans. They assume the United States is safe from calamity, protected by two oceans and our vast military machine. But this assumption is a fallacy.
If one assumes that Iran is in fact actively seeking to arm itself with a nuclear weapon, one ought to wonder if our long-standing policy of invading and bullying small states has encouraged this quest. Clearly, states like North Korea or India or Pakistan that have nukes don't get invaded. Continuing, if one assumes that Iran will in a few years acquire a few nuclear weapons, would Iran then pose a serious threat to the security of Americans in the United States? It's pretty obvious that Iran would pose no more threat to Americans at home than does North Korea; a nuke launched against territorial United States would trigger an immediate American response that would obliterate the population--and a good share of the ruling class--of the belligerant state.
What if the Iranian state armed Islamic terrorists with nukes? That's possibile, and all the more reason to withdraw from the Middle East today, and concentrate on our own civil defense. For our violent meddling adds fuel to the fires of hatred among angry Muslims, yet does nothing to protect Americans. For there are many avenues by which terrorists can acquire terrible weapons with which to murder innocent American citizens. The notion that bombing Iran with tactical nuclear weapons, thereby delaying their pursuit of nukes while murdering large numbers of innocent Iranians, will insulate Americans from retaliation, sooner or later, is just nonsense.
My argument is not motivated by cowardice. It simply acknowleges that individual rights are real, and that a policy that consistently upholds rights is the best--ultimately, the only--route to securing our safety and happiness. For Americans, such a policy includes freeing energy producers to profit by repealing taxes and punitive environmental regulations, and opening up federal lands and offshore oil and gas deposits to development, which in a short time would bankrupt socialist oil-states and render helpless the thugs who control them. Such a policy includes withdrawing our military from around the globe, to reduce the injustice of the tax burden on Americans, to spare them the unnecessary risks imposed on them by military adventuring, and to respect to rights of foreign innocents. Finally, such a policy would include reaching out to the world through trade and enterprise, while declaring our neutrality with respect to all foreign quarrels that fall short of a direct attack on the USA.
|
|
