CPAC: Ron Paul’s crank foreign policy
During his speech at CPAC Friday, Rep. Ron Paul declared that the US “propped up” Egyptian president Mubarak and, essentially, blamed the United States for his dictatorship. I’d like to put the question to Dr. Paul, what should the United States have done during the Cold War? That is when our alliance with Egypt developed, and it developed largely in response to the threat posed by the USSR. The Soviet Union posed an ideological and existential threat to the very liberties that Ron Paul rightly supports. Egypt was among the pivotal nations in a vital region of the world, and flirted with both superpowers. Mubarak himself actually trained for a couple of years with the Soviet military, but you never hear much about that from Paul or any other critic of US foreign policy. Egypt did what it did largely to get the best deal it could get from the Cold War combatants, while maintaining as much of its own autonomy as it could. A side benefit of Egypt’s alliance with the US was that, over time, it became less hostile to neighboring Israel, which translated into relative stability and actual peace. And while Egypt has had a far from perfect government, it has consistently fought against jihadists, which is not true of most of its neighboring states.
Given the realities of the Cold War and later the war on terrorism, the roots of which date back to 1928 at least in the modern context, and given the fact that Paul blames the United States for “propping up” Mubarak and, before him, Sadat, what would a President Ron Paul have done had he led the nation during the Cold War?
I think he would have ended up “propping up” Mubarak just like his predecessors did. Reality has a funny way of forcing one’s hand sometimes.
Why don’t you ask him (Paul)? He could say any number of things: ignore the situation (as libertarians like to stay out of stuff), support him (as you suggest), force a democracy (may have required military intervention), or some other choice. Ron Paul isn’t wrong, you’re just arguing that it was the best choice. I agree it wasn’t the worst choice, but other possibly better choices remain.
So please tell us, O wise one, what would have been the better choice? You have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, because the cold war was quite some time ago… so what would President Marv have done?
It’s extremely easy to say “other possibly better choices remain.” Actually enumerating those choices, however, is far harder. The first is basically Obama’s old trick of “voting present,” the second requires real wisdom and the cojones to stick one’s neck out and be wrong.
Do you have said cojones, or are you just another Ron Paul groupie who thinks he can say no wrong, do no wrong, and maybe even think no wrong?
Your post is argumentative. Do you think you come across as rational and unbiased. You come across as very anti-Paul. I’m not a Paul-head or whatever they are called, though I lean libertarian. I know that Ron Paul usually takes positions based on principle and he will normally explain (in great detail) why he has these principles. There really shouldn’t be much to argue about with him because if you disagree, you disagree with a principle, leading you to a different conclusion and that’s that. The only reason I posted here is because the article was very weak. Is Ron Paul unwelcome on PJM?
And you still avoided the point. You’re sleeping in the White House. You get the 3am call about Egypt during the Cold War.
What would you have done?
If you can’t answer that, and provide some evidence that the outcome would have been better than what really happened, then your argument is empty of real content, and is just the squawking of a Tuesday-morning quarterback saying, “I could have done better!”
So I have to speak for Ron Paul. I don’t think so. He can speak for himself.
1) No, you have to speak for yourself. You suggested there were better options, I asked what YOU–not Ron Paul, YOU–would have done. You’ve consistently avoided answering, which is an answer in and of itself.
2) Paul didn’t specify what HE would have done either, at least not that I have seen. So you’re following in his footsteps quite well… armchair quarterbacking, saying “I could have done better” and then running when asked for specifics.
Why do I have to come up with a better solution? What if I do? What if I don’t? How will it change my original argument that this article is poor and that Ron Paul was pointing out something that should be obvious to anyone. We propped up a dictator for our benefit and we deserve blame for that.
Your central question is ‘What is the best decision?’, I would ask ‘For whom?’ For the US, for the Egyptian people, the Soviets, for the world as a whole? What morals are to be applied to the decision.
A libertarian position might be: Don’t interfere internally with Egypt, but oppose the Soviets externally. That would be a better decision from a moral standpoint as the US would not hold any responsibility for Egypt itself.
You seem to think the decision we made was the correct one. The Egyptian people don’t agree with you. What is that going to cost us down the road?
Because you made the statement, “I agree it wasn’t the worst choice, but other possibly better choices remain.”
And here’s a news flash for you… not all choices are split into perfectly good/perfectly bad. Sometimes all choices have potential downsides, or things that will come back to bite us in the future. All you can do in those situations is make the best choice of those you are offered, and hope that the problems, when they appear, aren’t too bad. But if you don’t make the best choice you can, then you’ll have more problems later on.
See, you seem to have this idea that there was a choice that would be good all around. I don’t see that there was any such thing, just a range of choices from poor to bad to worst. Who’s the realist here?
I said no such thing. You either can’t read or refuse to. I’m done. You win! Yay!
I am sure everyone here can see where you said the statement I quoted, “I agree it wasn’t the worst choice, but other possibly better choices remain.” If you wanna claim you didn’t say that, well, the reader can judge your truthfulness on their own.
And I figured you’d run off eventually. It’s the pattern of armchair quarterbacks–or armchair generals–everywhere.
I should have been specific, I was responding to the end of your last comment. I never said there was a choice that was best for everyone.
I really am disappointed in that you won’t let that do as it has nothing to do with my point. You never addressed my point that this article is worthless.
It’s a shame. You argue like a liberal, please stop being conservative, you’re hurting us.
Oops… last sentence of second paragraph above should end with “stick one’s neck out and possibly be wrong.” I left a word out. Guess that’s what happens when one’s brain is running faster than one’s fingers.
I freely admit the error, however… I am human, I goof sometimes.
I did suggest that forcing a democracy as an option, figuring that it was an obvious example of a ‘better’ choice. It still doesn’t change the fact that we propped up a dictator for our benefit (which may have been the ‘best’ way, if not the most moral way).
I say again… what would President Marv have done? And can you prove it would have led to a “better” outcome than what the other decision did?
Hi Pajamas Media…and thank you for your “unbiased” headline. I will now ignore you.
What, do you folks sit around on Saturday afternoons typing “Ron Paul” into Google and denigrating every negative story?
Here’s a tip: Doing that ain’t gonna convince me to support your guy. In fact, it’s having quite the opposite effect. So, if you want to drive people away from the person you think is the Savior Of The Republic, keep on doing what you’re doing.
Oh, and one short fact… there is not a single American politician in all 200+ years of history that’s been universally loved, with the possible exception of George Washington. Being in politics means people are gonna disagree with you. If you Paul fans can’t handle that, you’d best stay well away from politics.
Is this the author? Otherwise… I wasn’t talking to you. You’ve made it perfectly clear you’re not a fan of Paul…so be it. But if you think the ideas battle of liberty, freedom and sound money is going away, after Dr. Paul is gone…you are incorrect. The young people love the message and are passionate about it. Really doesn’t matter what you think, to tell you the truth.
I know…its a hard pill to swallow.
Sweet meltdown Wanderer!
News flash: you posted a comment on a public forum. That allows anyone passing by to respond.
Oh, and you’re now proven a liar, since you said, and I quote, “I will now ignore you.” Yet here you are, responding. Some ignoring.
Someday you’ll wake up to the real world outside of your college campus. When you do, look me up, we’ll discuss how things really are.
Wow wanderer, you are really struggling with Dr. Paul, huh? Chris is a liar because he chose to respond to your post?….after all….its a public forum, as you said. Seems like you’re really reaching here and looking for anything to make yourself feel better or justify your hate of Dr. Paul’s consistent, conservative message.
News flash, wanderer….your neoconservative ideals are losing and WILL lose, regarless of whether Dr. Paul is elected POTUS or not. It is time constitutional conservatives rise up and take back this party…..or move on because the Republican Party fails to adopt the people’s will. Get on board…..or get out of the way.
Never read my blog, have ya?
I am not a neocon, being neither Jewish nor a new (“neo”) convert to the fold. I am a proud Reaganite conservative who entered his political life by voting for that great man, and still cherish the ideals he espoused.
By the way, Reagan got elected twice to the Presidency, the second time winning 49 of the 50 states. He brought a large number of Democratic voters, who were then known as “Reagan Democrats.” That shows just how popular his ideas were at the time… and I think the fact that we’re celebrating his 100th birthday shows that they’re still popular… can anyone imagine doing the same for, say, Ford or Carter when their 100th rolls around?
Now, if you wanna turn this into a pissing contest–and your attitude seems to indicate that you do–what has Paul done? How many times has he been elected to the highest office in the land? How many states did he win? How many “Paul Democrats” voted for him?
Now go put another sock on your hand, “Chris,” and try again.
I would vote for Obama again b4 I ever voted for any member of the Paul family.
That may be, but you’re not providing anyone else a reason to agree with you. Do you have reasons why Obama is a better choice that Paul? You really should try to post better, otherwise, what’s the point?
Here’s my reason I’ll never vote for Paul, paraphrased from a response to another Tatler post.
“He’s completely honest and not a flip-flop”
And he believes honestly in a foreign/military policy that is so disastrously stupid that I will never vote for him. He has also never coughed up a good explanation or apology for the White Supremacist teaser pieces that come out in his newsletter when Lew Rockwell was it’s editor.
The fact you voted for Oba Jihad the first time pretty much destroys your credibility, eh?
A response to Marv, who’s the same sort of idiot Paul is.
“We propped up a dictator for our benefit and we deserve blame for that.”
We deserve commendation for making the best of a bad set of choices.
“What morals are to be applied to the decision.”
One’s which have greatest odds of satisfying the purposes of the constitution’s preamble without violating it’s later tenets. Which giving aid to Egypt does not.
“Don’t interfere internally with Egypt, but oppose the Soviets externally.”
From where, from Staten Island? By what means? Making faces at them?
You’re stupid. So’s Paul. You can’t look at history and draw correct inferences.
Nice name calling. It doesn’t help your argument.
This whole thread is hilarious. I don’t support Ron Paul unequivocally (I support a lot of what he says though). I just argued that the article didn’t make the case that he was wrong or that he would have made the same choice. Again, the article is worthless.
We did prop up a dictator, there are repercussions for that. You aren’t arguing otherwise. -Point Marv.
Your morals are such that the US can support violence against the Egyptian people to oppose the Soviets. I’m not sure how installing a dictator is considered giving aid, particularly in the eyes of the Egyptians. A different set of morals might have lead one to install a democracy in Egypt by force as we tried to do in Korea/Vietnam. That would be a better choice for the Egyptians (probably, we can’t be certain), but would have cost us more. A different set of morals leads to different choices.
Reagan opposed the Soviets using words and a big ass military. Indicating to them what would be unacceptable and prepared to back it up.
You seem to believe that is it morally correct to support a dictator to oppress a small instead of letting the communists oppress them. That’s fine. Ron Paul I believe wouldn’t have. I disagree with the articles conclusion and with regard to the Egyptian people it was a wash.
I’m curious what you think the US should have done with the current situation in Egypt? Is it a good thing that a democracy is being formed in Egypt that may be less pro US? Should we step in or be hands off?
You do yourself no favors calling someone stupid. It obviously makes you feel better thinking I am stupid, because if I am not, what does it say about you?
“Nice name calling.”
Thank you. The repetition of the obvious has become an obligation, these days. It’s something about Paul which has to be said.
“We did prop up a dictator, there are repercussions for that.”
If you imagine any one thinks that’s all you are intending, go look elsewhere for people to buy your bridge.
“I’m not sure how installing a dictator is considered giving aid”
He installed himself, you dolt.
“A different set of morals might have lead one to install a democracy in Egypt by force as we tried to do in Korea/Vietnam.”
Exactly like how Paul wouldn’t have done it, and how it wouldn’t have worked in any case? Where is the evidence anything like a democracy as we’d recognize it is what the Egyptian’s want, en masse?
“You seem to believe that is it morally correct to support a dictator to oppress a small instead of letting the communists oppress them.”
It is morally correct to deal with the world as it is when you can’t fix everything at once. What domino would you have let fall while occupied in Egypt, if you are seriously pretending either you or Paul would have involved us there? Taiwan, Berlin? Nicaragua, Honduras, et al? ROK?
“I’m curious what you think the US should have done with the current situation in Egypt?”
Probably nothing at all. To a first order of magnitude, it’s their business. We have a valid interest in preventing Egypt’s fall to the Islamists–this puts us at odds with most of the Egyptian people. So be it.
“You do yourself no favors calling someone stupid.”
You do yourself no favors being so stupid as presenting yourself as in any way supporting Paul.
The difference between ad hominem and firmly held opinion is a small one, you are free to claim my views are either, both, or one or the other.
Just to reiterate–Paul is dolt of the worst sort with regard to foreign policy, one for whom prudence is no virtue.
“Just to reiterate–Paul is dolt of the worst sort with regard to foreign policy, one for whom prudence is no virtue.”
Actually, Ron Paul is a paleocon in foreign policy, his policies are essentially the same as Pat Buchanan’s. And just as incorrect.
“Dolt” works for me, fewer letters. It appeals to my sense of economy. Please note I’m not disagreeing with you, it’s just that you’re using more words than I feel is required to say what I already knew.
WWI we might have stayed out of…I rather like the idea of Lenin and Stalin being the Kaiser’s problem, and I doubt then we’d have ever heard of the Bavarian Corporal.
Once the die was cast in the Hall of Mirrors, our involvement in WWII was a foregone conclusion. Buchanan and Paul are both dolts.
Yeah, I do tend to be wordy sometimes. Then there are other times I’m terse to the point of incomprehensibility, unless you know me really well.
Besides, I wouldn’t want the dolts out there to feel insulted by the comparison to Paul or Buchanan.