The video wants viewers to imagine that Chinese or Russian troops invade and occupy Texas, and then figure out how Americans would react to that. Newsflash: Texans provide something like 30 to 40% of the US military, are very armed and wouldn’t take kindly to it. From there, the video makes ignorant excuses for the terrorists who murdered thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan over the years of war. It’s really a clueless, fearful, stupid piece of work dressed up in pretty graphics.
Ignored: The terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan slaughtered fellow Iraqis and Afghans by the thousands, wherever and whenever they had the chance. Ignored: That Iran fed the violence in Iraq for years both to destabilize the American presence and to keep Iraq, its longtime rival, weak. Also ignored: Not all American troops on foreign soil can be classified as “occupying” forces.
That’s how Ron Paul and his cult consistently characterize them, but that’s not what they are. The American troops in South Korea, for instance, aren’t occupying anything. They’re the tripwire on the DMZ, keeping the Communist North Korean army from invading and subjugating the free and prosperous South. The Americans are keeping the peace. The troops in Japan, of which I was one at one time, are there because the Japanese want them there both to keep the Soviets out when they were a threat and to keep the Chinese out now. Both Japan and South Korea pay a great deal of the expenses to keep the Americans there. The US troops in Asia serve to stabilize the region, as the host countries and their hostile neighbors realize but that funny little man who looks like Guy Fawkes doesn’t. The US troops in Europe served the same purpose, both keeping the Soviets and now the Russians in check, and keeping the Europeans from fighting each other again. The American troops stabilize the region that destroyed itself in two world wars. It’s cheaper in money and lives to keep American troops there than it is to rebuild the place after the locals blast it to pieces again. It can be argued that the overseas troops have served their purpose and therefore we should withdraw those bases. I’m sympathetic to that argument myself, at least as concerns Europe. But what cannot be argued is that the American troops there are occupying forces in any true sense of the term.
I bring them all up, because the simple-minded video above makes it seem as if every single American troop on foreign soil is a member of a lawless and hostile occupying army that’s one breath away from raping the countries they’re serving in. It makes no distinctions for the different roles the troops serve in different regions and whether the world is better off with them serving those roles or not. They’re all just occupiers on the level with a Chinese or Russian army squatting on bases in the US after invading us.
Never mind that Chinese or Russians troops would have very different intentions from any troops that America would base anywhere. Never mind that the US went into Afghanistan because its government harbored al Qaeda, which had murdered nearly 3,000 innocent Americans in the heart of New York, and never mind that we went into Iraq to take out a serious world threat who had been a menace for more than a decade. The video and Ron Paul in his own statements never take that into account, preferring the simple-minded “Well you’d become a terrorist too if China invaded Texas.” It takes a special level of moron to find such arguments persuasive in the context of the Islamist war against the world.
I feel like I’m pointing out the obvious, but the polls suggest that it’s not obvious at all. Ron Paul refuses to find anything good in American foreign policy, and he fails to see any difference between US intentions and those of Communist China and post-Soviet Russia. He believes that we should not have engaged in World War II in order to defend the Jews, when the truth is that we engaged in World War II because Japan attacked us on our own soil and Germany declared war on us. We found out about the “final solution” well into the war. From the American perspective World War II was never truly about holocaust, but Ron Paul casts it as such so that he can rationalize a non-interventionist policy. Which, knowing what we now know about the holocaust, is a ghastly thing to do.
It’s a funny non-interventionism, that doesn’t recognize that a nation that fails to defend its own citizens on its own soil isn’t much of a nation at all. If a nation doesn’t intervene to defend its citizens on its own soil, its enemies surely will take that into account.
His is a very strange moral universe, where terrorists are justified in attacking their own countrymen as well as Americans in the United States because we “occupied” Saudi Arabia (we actually based troops there to keep Saddam Hussein from repeating the Kuwait invasion, an invasion made easier because there was no strong American presence in the region prior to the 1990 invasion, because an earlier Islamist revolution had pushed American troops out of our former ally, Iran), but America is not entitled to defend herself ever, never mind defend her allies or do anything to ensure stability. He believes mercantilism is the solution to every world problem, which ignores the role that beliefs and ideology play in world affairs. He leaves out the history that led to American troops being based overseas, and his followers take his cues to produce the mindless video above. His foreign policy is part Ward Churchill, part Jack Murtha, part Howard Dean and part Jeremiah Wright. And his followers either don’t get that, or don’t have a problem with it. Or they don’t even know enough to know what any of that means or why it’s bad and ultimately dangerous.
It might be funny if Paul wasn’t on the cusp of wrecking the Iowa caucus and destroying the GOP and libertarianism along the way.
h/t Iowahawk






Get ready for even more frothing at the mouth from the Ronulans over this one, Bryan.
You and I have had our differences in the past, but I gotta say, on this issue you’re making me proud to be even a tiny part of PJM.
I just want to know who I can talk to about getting the last 2 minutes and 47 seconds of my life back!!
Couldn’t tell you Bennie. Maybe your best bet is to only read Ron Paul websites then you won’t have your opinions challenged.
Something just occurred to me…
At 2:47, this “ad” is too long for regular TV, and too short for infomercials.
How like the Ronulans to miss both opportunities.
Dead right, Bryan.
I was particularly disturbed with the bit at about 1:40 where this ad says that the American people elected a president who promised to RUN from the world stage, but didn’t do it fast enough, complete with the Obama logo and chants of Yes We Can. Ron Paul: I can destroy American security and sovereignty faster than Barack Obama!
How ’bout imagining this?: the Chinese troops “occupy” us on our southern border and keep the Mexican gangs and invaders out. I would then start to see the Chinese troops as a stabilizing factor, and I would respect them more than I respect my own lazy, self-sabotaging government. THAT’S the proper analogy to US troops in Iraq, you idiot Paulbots!
Oh, I forgot: Paul wants to just erase the border.
He’s a moron.
Obama wanted US troops out of Iraq.
Paul wanted US troops out of Iraq.
Interesting meeting of the minds there, hmmm?
Indeed.
I keep pointing out that with Paul’s foreign policy positions being identical to Obama’s, that really leaves the only difference between the two of them being Paul’s promise to audit the Fed.
The Paulbots get angsty on me when I declare this is insufficient to consider voting for him.
The “Ronulans” (nice that) have really reached the point of diminishing returns. At first they were cute, and tossed a nice little bit of libertarian-ism into the discussion.
Now they’re starting to look like a bunch of delusional cultists worshipping a semi-senile crackpot. They’ve been in panic mode ever since Paul’s last, farcical debate performance. They’r no longer interested in discussing issues, just ramming their talking points down the throats of anyone gullible enought to listen to them.
Time for the Paulistas to get back on their anti-psychotic meds, and get this clown off the stage once and for all, so that sane people can choose a viable candidate.
Gee wiz, just take every leftist anti military argument out there and throw it all into one ad. I’m surprised that they just didn’t flat out call the military a bunch of baby killers. What an offensive ad.
I hate this moral relativism crap. Guess it must be easier imagining that there’s no actual evil people out there (except the US of course) than to actually use the brain that God gave them to see that the world’s not the nicest place out there and that not all cultures are equal.
I remember an ad during the previous elections campaign for Ron Paul in Pennsylvania saying about he spent 4 or something years in the Air Force. You really wouldn’t know it by listening to him speak!
Well, four years in the Air Force only bears vague resemblance to four years in the military….
As someone who spent years in both the Army and Air Force, I remember actually hearing someone describe the Air Force as “a great alternative to military service.” No one EVER said that about the Army.
That said, “Go Falcons!”
His followers and himself are of low IQ.
“Newsflash: Texans provide something like 30 to 40% of the US military, are very armed and wouldn’t take kindly to it”
so what you are saying is they would arm themselves and resist then?
so then the occupiers refer to them as ‘insurgents’, victims of poor education and dangerous rhetoric. What does that sound like eh?
The fact is for every 10 ‘insurgents’ there are probably 2 or 3 that are those who might fly a plane into a building, while the rest are men and women who have suffered at the hands of the occupiers or just can’t stand seeing what is happening. They are two very different sorts of people, and calling ALL of them terrorists is much like calling all post office workers serial killers.
Fact is, one of the promises made to the people that elected Obama was to pull out. You americans have such a putrid political system that promises are only worth as much as lobbyists say they are.
Here in Australia, similar calls from the public have resulted in a full withdrawal from Iraq and mostly withdrawn from Afganistan, complete by 2013/14 with a large part of that devoted to mentoring.
“Never mind that Chinese or Russians troops would have very different intentions from any troops that America would base anywhere.”
….and what would that be? what is it with americans having such a fear of communism? it’s like my wife with mice and spiders! Everyone knows communism doesn’t work, we’ve seen their cars, we’ve seen their architecture… it’s all rubbish. What’s there to fear exactly? Russia dumped it and China are just as interested in commerce as the USA.
Are they coming to eat your babies or something? Lords, you still afraid of the boogie man too?!
The ad leave a lot to be desired, but at it’s core there is a damn good point. no-one with an ounce of sense thinks Iraq was about anything other than Oil, Afghanistan was a response to the school bully being given a blood nose, just as Korea and Vietnam was due to abject fear of the growing communist bloc. Yeah, 11/9 was terrible, but lets put that into perspective…
Americans killed 11/9: ~3,000
Afghans killed during war: ~20,000
Iraqis killed during war: ~900,000
It’s time to let them sort themselves out.
As I said above:
Sure must make you feel a thrill up your leg to know you’re supporting a candidate with the exact same foreign policy as Mr. Obama.
lolwut?
When Obama ran, pulling the troops out of Iraq was a part of his platform, but once he was president, he became quite pro-war. He wanted to extend Bush’s deadline, but the Iraqi government refused to extend our troop’s legal immunity.
Repeat for clarity: Obama *wanted to stay in Iraq*, but Iraq didn’t want us there.
Another thing: “Ron Paul’s foreign policy is wrong because Obama agrees with it” is a textbook example of an ad hominem argument (or at least it’s in the same spirit), which are against comment rules.
Conservative sites like this post articles criticizing Paul while demonstrating that they haven’t taken the time to really understand what his positions are.
Then the comments are full of additional misunderstanding while calling Paul supporters “cultists” for pointing out the BS.
Ron Paul doesn’t believe there are evil people in the world? He wants to erase the border? Where you do get this nonsense?
Yes, Paul’s supporters are rather touchy. I’ll admit that, and it’s unfortunate. Please understand that we’re trying to elect the only candidate that really understands economics and the constitution, and we get a little upset when the people who are supposed to be our allies go out of their way to misrepresent his ideas.
One point of clarification: Ron Paul is disposable. The moment he stops supporting libertarian ideals, he will be dropped like a hot stone. It’s not the person we’re committed to, it’s the philosophy of liberty.
OMG… Ron Paul is NOT ‘the only candidate that really understands economics and the constitution’!! When you say ridiculous things like that it further cements the sane world’s opinion that Ronulans have veered off the path of common sense. Ron Paul is many things. He’s the ONLY candidate who would let bloodthirsty madmen have nukes. He’s the ONLY candidate that would abandon our allies. He’s the ONLY candidate who wants to make rush our nation’s moral decay by killing our souls with hard drugs and prostitution. He’s the ONLY candidate who has followers spraying vinegar at the sky to eliminate ‘chemtrails’ that they feel the Zionist-controlled government are using to exert mind control over the citizens. He’s the ONLY candidate who made money off of racist, anti-Semitic newsletters, but he’s NOT the only candidate who understands economics and the Constitution.
Speaking of chemtrails and 9/11 Truthers…
http://xkcd.com/966/
Gotta love someone who makes fun of ‘em.
OK, he doesn’t want to erase the border. He’ll just do absolutley nothing to defend it. Huge difference there. His notion that a fence to keep anyone out would also “keep us in” smacks of brain damage.
Wow, thanks for the video, I wasn’t sure about voting for Ron Paul until I saw that video, obviously you don’t feel the same way, but thanks for exposing me to something that helped me make up my mind.
You have a mind, Paulbot?
roflmao
That ad is as mindless a John Lennon’s Imagine.
Bottom line is Ron Paul’s foreign policy is REACTIONARY, not defensive. He would wait for, an attack on this country before responding. He would let a foreign power gain in military might in Europe or Asia until it had the forces and resources to defeat us.
Ron Paul’s foreign policy is not Constitutional, it is suicidal.
God how I DESPISE “Imagine”! Worst song ever!
I disagree that this is as mindless as “Imagine”.
The lyrics of “Imagine” acknowledge that it is just a goofy pipe dream.
This ad is meant to be taken seriously.
Advantage: hippie stoners.