Email #1
Victor
Nick:
This article from WSJ is on the point I made to you regarding Paul’s views on
the US foreign policies and
his opinion of America
in general.
Some highlighting is mine.
Think about it.
Victor
What Ron Paul Thinks
of America
It seemed improbable that the best-known
American propagandist for our enemies could be near the top of the pack in the Iowa contest, but there
it is.
Ron Paul's supporters are sure of one thing:
Their candidate has always been consistent—a point Dr. Paul himself has been
making with increasing frequency. It's a thought that comes up with a certain
inevitability now in those roundtables on the Republican field. One cable
commentator genially instructed us last Friday, "You have to give Paul
credit for sticking to his beliefs."
He was speaking, it's hardly necessary to
say, of a man who holds some noteworthy views in a candidate for the presidency
of the United States.
One who is the best-known of our homegrown propagandists
for our chief enemies in the world. One who has made himself a leading spokesman
for, and recycler of, the long and familiar litany of charges that point to the
United States
as a leading agent of evil and injustice, the militarist victimizer of millions
who want only to live in peace.
Hear Dr. Paul on the subject of the 9/11 terror
attacks—an event, he assures his audiences, that took place only because of U.S.
aggression and military actions. True, we've heard the assertions before. But
rarely have we heard in any American political figure such exclusive concern
for, and appreciation of, the motives of those who attacked us—and so
resounding a silence about the suffering of those thousands that the
perpetrators of 9/11 set out so deliberately to kill.
There is among some supporters now drawn to
Dr. Paul a tendency to look away from the candidate's reflexive way of
assigning the blame for evil—the evil, in particular, of terrorism—to the
United States.
One devout libertarian told me recently that
candidate Paul "believes in all the things I do about the menace of
government control, and he's a defender of the Constitution—I just intend to
take what I like about him." The speaker, educated and highly accomplished
in his field (music), is a committed internationalist whose views on American
power are polar opposites of those his candidate espouses. No matter. Having
tuned out all else that candidate has said—with, yes, perfect consistency—it
was enough for him that Dr. Paul upheld libertarian values.
This admirer is representative of a fair
number of people now flocking to the Paul campaign or thinking of doing so. It
may come as a surprise to a few of them that in the event of a successful
campaign, a President Paul won't be making decisions based just on the parts of
his values that his supporters find endearing. He'd be making decisions about
the nation's defense, national security, domestic policy and much else. He'd be
the official voice of America—and,
in one conspicuous regard, a familiar one.
The world may not be ready for another American
president traversing half the globe to apologize for the misdeeds of the nation
he had just been elected to lead. Still, it would be hard to find any public
figure in America
whose views more closely echo those of President Obama on that tour.
Most of Dr. Paul's supporters, of course,
don't actually imagine he can become president. Nor do they dwell on the
implications of the enlarged influence conferred on him by a few early primary
victories (a third-party run is not something he rules out, the ever-consistent
Dr. Paul has repeatedly said under questioning).
A grandfatherly sort who dispenses family
cookbooks on the campaign trail, candidate Paul is entirely aware of the value
of being liked. He has of late even tried softening the tone of some of his
comments on the crime of foreign aid and such, but it doesn't last long. There
he was at the debate last Thursday waving his arms, charging that the U.S. was
declaring "war on 1.2 billion Muslims," that it "viewed all
Muslims as the same." Yes, he allowed, "there are a few
radicals"—and then he proceeded to hold forth again on the good reasons
terrorists had for mounting attacks on us.
His efforts on behalf of Iran's right to
the status of misunderstood victim continued apace. On the Hannity show
following the debate, Dr. Paul urged the host to understand that Iran's leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had never
mentioned any intention of wiping Israel off the map. It was all a
mistranslation, he explained. What about Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust?
A short silence ensued as the candidate stared into space. He moved quickly on
to a more secure subject. "They're just defending themselves," he
declared.
Presumably he was referring to Iran's wishes
for a bomb. It would have been intriguing to hear his answer had he been asked
about another Ahmadinejad comment, made more than once—the one in which the
Iranian leader declares the U.S.
"a Satanic power that will, with God's will, be annihilated."
There can be no confusions about Dr. Paul's
own comments about the U.S.
After 9/11, he said to students in Iowa, there
was "glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq." It
takes a profoundly envenomed mindset—one also deeply at odds with reality—to
believe and to say publicly that the administration of this nation brought so
low with grief and loss after the attack had reacted with glee. There are, to
be sure, a number of like-minded citizens around (see the 9/11 Truthers, whose
opinions Dr. Paul has said he doesn't share). But we don't expect to find their
views in people running for the nation's highest office.
The Paul comment here is worth more than a
passing look. It sums up much we have already heard from him. It's the voice of
that ideological school whose central doctrine is the proposition that the U.S. is the
main cause of misery and terror in the world. The school, for instance, of
Barack Obama's former minister famed for his "God d— America" sermons: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright,
for whom, as for Dr. Paul, the 9/11 terror assault was only a case of victims
seeking justice, of "America's
chickens coming home to roost."
Some in Iowa are reportedly now taking a look at Dr.
Paul, now risen high in the polls there. He has plenty of money for advertising
and is using it, and some may throw their support to him, if only as protest
votes. He appears to be gaining some supporters in New Hampshire as well. It seemed improbable
that the best-known of American propagandists for our enemies could be near the
top of the pack in the Iowa
contest, but there it is. An interesting status for a candidate of Dr. Paul's
persuasion to have achieved and he'll achieve even more if Iowans choose to
give him a victory.
Email #2
Nick
Here
are some links that I would like for you to take a look at. Changing opinions
is difficult so look at this with an open mind.
I
hope to hear your thoughts on this. Also please do some fact checking on this
as I can’t possibly know if this is 100% accurate, but from what I did
research, everything adds up.
Informative links
Documentary on Iraq made in the early 2000s
Response to the article
by
Jacob G. Hornberger
One of the more fascinating attacks on Ron Paul comes from Dorothy
Rabinowitz in the December 22, 2012, issue of the Wall Street Journal.
Not surprisingly, given that Rabinowitz serves on the Journal’s editorial
board, she goes after Paul for his foreign-policy views. What I found
interesting about the article, which is entitled “What Ron Paul Thinks of America,”
is the superficial nature of the attack. Rabinowitz’s article, quite simply,
lacks any depth of analysis on the critical points she makes about Paul.
Rabinowitz begins her
attack by repeating the standard canard that interventionists love to level at
libertarians who point to the role that U.S. foreign policy played in
motivating the 9/11 attacks. She says that Paul is blaming America for the attacks and even
accuses Paul of being the “best-known American propagandist for our enemies.”
But contrary to
Rabinowitz’s assertion, neither Paul nor any other libertarian has ever blamed America
for the 9/11 attacks. Libertarians point to what the federal government has
done to people overseas that has incited them to anger and rage, which
ultimately has motivated some of them to engage in terrorist retaliation.
Did you catch that?
Libertarians point to the role of the U.S. government’s foreign policy is
generating the anger and hatred that many foreigners have for the United
States, which ultimately culminated in the 9/11 attacks? Do you see anything in
the previous paragraph about blaming America or the American people for
anti-American terrorism?
Like so many other
interventionists, Rabinowitz makes the standard mistake of conflating the
federal government and the country. For her, they are obviously one and the
same thing. For the interventionist, the federal government is America.
Condemn what the U.S.
government has done to people overseas and you’re condemning America. You’ve become a
“propagandist for America’s
enemies.”
It’s a shame that
Rabinowitz didn’t take the time to delve into and carefully analyze this point
of her attack. It would have been fascinating to see her confront how she
herself jumps from a critique made of the U.S.
government’s foreign policy to one of blaming America
or even becoming a “propagandist for America’s enemies.”
In fact, given the
Journal’s devotion to the Constitution, it would have been fascinating to see
how Rabinowitz reconciles her mindset, in which she conflates the federal
government and the country, with the Bill of Rights. Since the Bill of Rights
expressly protects America
from the federal government, that is fairly persuasive proof that the federal
government and the country are two separate and distinct entities. How would
Rabinowitz deal with that?
Actually, however, the
problem goes deeper than that. I wish Rabinowitz had carefully explained her
reasoning regarding libertarian critique of U.S. foreign policy. Here are some
questions that would have made for a much more interesting article:
1. Is
Rabinowitz saying that the federal government/America is incapable of doing bad
things to people overseas?
2. Or is
she saying that when the federal government/America does bad things to people
overseas, foreigners are incapable of getting angry over such things?
3. Or is
she saying that when foreigners do get angry over bad things that the federal
government/America does to them, it is inconceivable that such anger could ever
manifest itself in terrorist retaliation?
4. Or is
she saying that the evidence with respect to 9/11 suggests that the terrorists
were motivated by hatred for America’s
“freedom and values” rather than by anger arising from U.S. foreign policy?
Alas, in her haste to
attack Ron Paul for his non-interventionism, Rabinowitz failed to confront any
of those questions. That’s a shame because she could have really enlightened
people as to the nature of the interventionist mindset and it truly differs
from that of libertarians.
Part 2
Given the ongoing
tensions between the U.S.
government and the Iranian regime, it is not surprising that Wall Street
Journal editorial board member Dorothy Rabinowitz brought up Iran
in her attack on Ron Paul’s libertarian views on foreign policy.
What was disappointing,
again, was the superficial level of her attack. Here was an excellent
opportunity to show people the nature of the interventionist mindset, how it
applies specifically to Iran,
and how it differs from that of libertarians.
Instead, Rabinowitz
limited her remarks to mocking Ron Paul over a statement that Iranian leader
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made long ago about wiping Israel off the map and Ahmadinejad’s
denial of the Holocaust.
What a shame because
Rabinowitz missed the opportunity to discuss Iran in the context of a central
issue of her op-ed — whether U.S. foreign policy ever engenders so much anger
and hatred for the United States that the victims are motivated to retaliate
with acts of terrorism.
Consider, for example,
the CIA-instigated coup in Iran
in 1953, which ousted the democratically elected prime minister of the country
from office and replaced him with a brutal unelected dictator, one who continued
oppressing the Iranian people for the next 25 years.
It would have been
fascinating to read Rabinowitz’s take on the CIA coup. Does she believe that
the U.S. government was
justified in destroying Iran’s
experiment with democracy and installing a brutal U.S.-supported dictatorship
in its stead? Does she consider the CIA’s coup an act of war against a
sovereign and independent regime? Does she consider it an act of goodness for
the benefit of the Iranian people? Does she justify the coup by resorting to
the old time-honored mantra of the national-security state, “national
security”?
Equally important, how
does she perceive the reaction of the Iranian people upon learning what the CIA
had done to their country? Does she feel that Iranians became angry over the
coup? Or does she take the position that it is inconceivable the coup would
generate anger among Iranians given that a friend of the United States was installed into
power?
When the Iranian
revolution occurred in 1979, after 25 years of brutal and oppressive U.S. government-supported dictatorship, some of
the revolutionaries took U.S.
diplomats hostage, which was clearly an act of terrorism. What would Rabinowitz
say about that? Would she say that the terrorist retaliation had nothing to do
with what the CIA had done 25 years before and nothing to do with the U.S.
government’s support of the Iranian dictatorship for the previous 25 years?
Would she say that the terrorism was instead motivated by hatred for America’s
“freedom and values”? Indeed, would she argue that America’s
“freedom and values” encompass the authority of the U.S.
government to engage in regime-change operations in countries whose regimes are
headed by officials who don’t kowtow to the U.S. government?
Again, we don’t know
the answer to those questions because, unfortunately, Rabinowitz’s attack on
Ron Paul, while long on superficialities, was short on substance.
Consider the recent
alleged assassination plot on American soil that U.S. officials claimed was
orchestrated by the Iranian government. Weren’t interventionists angry and
outraged over it? Didn’t they consider it to be an act of aggression? Weren’t
they calling for military retaliation against Iran?
Yet, at the same time,
such interventionists cannot understand why Iranians would get angry over a
successful CIA-instigated coup in their country that destroyed their experiment
with democracy and subjected them to a brutal unelected dictatorship for the
next 25 years.
Indeed, there is
significant evidence that the U.S.
military and the CIA are currently engaged in covert assassinations of atomic
scientists in Iran.
What do U.S.
interventionists say about that? They think it’s inconceivable that Iranians
would get angry over such a thing and, in any event, that such anger would be
unjustified.
And what about the
deadly and destructive effects of the U.S.
sanctions against Iran?
Does Rabinowitz concede that they might engender anger and hatred for the United States
among the Iranian people? Alas, we don’t know because she chose not to address
that critically important issue.
In her article,
Rabinowitz mocked the assertion that Iran might want to acquire a
nuclear bomb for defensive purposes.
Yet, consider the fact
that there are no regime-change operations directed at North Korea, which U.S.
officials placed in the same “axis of evil” in which they placed Iran.
Why the difference in treatment? North Korea has acquired a nuclear weapon, one
that is clearly not being fired at the United States but instead has succeeded
in deterring a U.S. regime-change operation in North Korea, unlike, say, the
situation in Iraq, where the regime had no nuclear weapons and where the U.S.
government did succeed in effecting regime change with a brutal military
invasion and a deadly nine-year military occupation.
Might that not explain
why Iran
might try to acquire a nuclear weapon? Why can’t interventionists see that?
And therein lies a big
part of the problem with the interventionist mindset: Interventionists simply
cannot place themselves in the shoes of foreigners who are the victims of U.S.
foreign policy. All they can think about is being in the shoes of the U.S.
Empire, as it treads across the globe, killing, maiming, kidnapping,
renditioning, incarcerating, torturing, and abusing people in the process of
trying to install pro-U.S. regimes into power, which interventionists say must
all be good because it is being done by the U.S. Empire.
Alas, Rabinowitz fails
to discuss any of this. Instead, she limits her superficial attack on Ron Paul
to some statement that Ahmadinejad made years ago about wiping Israel
off the map and his denial that the Holocaust took place.
Yet, throughout the
Cold War conservatives were saying the same thing about the Soviet Union that
Ahmadinejad said about Israel
— how they wanted to see the Soviet Union
wiped off the map. While it is true that many officials in the Pentagon favored
a first-strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union during the Cold War, most
conservatives were simply hoping that the Soviet Union would collapse and
disintegrate — i.e., be wiped off the map — of its own accord, which it
ultimately was.
What about Rabinowitz’s
complaint that Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust? Libertarians hold that the
God-given rights of freedom of thought and freedom of speech entail the right
to believe and say whatever people want, no matter how despicable. But I
suppose that’s just one more difference between libertarians and conservatives.
Part 3
One of the most
disappointing aspects of Wall Street Journal editorial member Dorothy
Rabinowitz’s attack on Ron Paul for his foreign-policy views pertains to the
motives of those who are driven to commit terrorist attacks on the United States.
While repeatedly pooh-poohing Paul’s emphasis on U.S. foreign policy for being the
motive behind the 9/11 attacks, Rabinowitz failed to reveal her own thinking on
the subject. That’s truly a shame because she passed up an opportunity to give
people a glimpse into the interventionist mind on this important subject.
Does Rabinowitz take
the same line that many U.S.
officials took immediately after the 9/11 attacks: that the terrorists were
motivated by hatred for America’s
“freedom and values“? Was it their disdain for rock and roll, religious
liberty, gun rights, and freedom of speech that drove them to commit those
suicide attacks?
Alas, we don’t know
because Rabinowitz didn’t reveal her thinking on the issue. Instead, she simply
mocked what libertarians, including Paul, have been saying ever since the 9/11
attacks — that what the U.S.
government had been doing to people in the Middle East
produced so much anger and rage that it ultimately manifested itself in acts of
terrorism.
Let’s examine some of
those aspects of U.S.
foreign policy and ask ourselves what Rabinowitz would say about their possible
effect on people in the Middle East.
Let’s consider, for
example, the brutal sanctions that the U.S.
government and the UN (at the behest of the U.S.
government) imposed and enforced against Iraq for more than 10 years, which
contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.
What would Rabinowitz
say about that? Would she say that the sanctions didn’t really do that? Would
she say that the brunt of the sanctions fell only on Saddam Hussein and his
inner circle? Would she deny that people in the Middle
East attributed the deaths of the children to the sanctions? What
would she say about the two high UN officials — Denis Halliday and Hans von
Sponek — who resigned in protest against what they called genocide?
Or would she say that
even though hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children died as a result of the
sanctions, people in the Middle East didn’t
really get angry about it? Would she say the same thing that U.S. officials said about Asians during the
Vietnam War — that people in the Middle East
simply don’t place the same value on human life as Americans do? Would she say
that friends and relatives of the deceased children would have been okay with
the deaths given that the sanctions were meant for a good purpose — regime
change in Iraq?
Alas, we just don’t
know what Rabinowitz would say about that because, for whatever reason, she
chose not address the issue in her attack on Ron Paul.
In 1996 — five years
before the sanctions were finally lifted — U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations Madeleine Albright — was asked by “Sixty Minutes“: “We have heard that
half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know,
is the price worth it?“
Albright responded: “I
think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth
it.“
Did any U.S.
official, including President Clinton, condemn Albright or correct her? Nope.
Presumably their mindset was the same as hers.
So, what would
Rabinowitz say about that? Would she say that “Sixty Minutes“ misquoted
Albright or took her words out of context? Would she say that Albright forgot
to deny that half-a-million children had died as a result of the sanctions? Or
would she say that people in the Middle East, including the parents of the
children, would not actually get too upset over such a statement by the U.S.
government’s official spokesman before the UN?
Again, we don’t know
what Rabinowitz would say because she remained silent on the issue in her
attack on Ron Paul. What a shame because it would have been fascinating to gain
a glimpse of the interventionist mindset on this important issue.
Or consider the
unconditional foreign aid, both cash and weaponry, that the U.S. government has long provided
the Israeli government. No matter where one falls on the divide between Israel
and the Palestinians, everyone agrees that there is tremendous anger and hatred
among many Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims over the existence of the Israeli
state and what they consider has been horrible mistreatment of the Palestinians
by the Israeli government. Therefore, doesn’t it stand to reason that such
anger and hatred would apply to the foreign regime that unconditionally
provides cash and armaments to the regime that such people hate?
What would Rabinowitz
say about that? Again, we just don’t know.
What about the U.S. government’s stationing of troops near Mecca and Medina?
Everyone knows that those are the holiest lands in the Muslim religion. Most
everyone also knows that many Muslims hold that non-Muslims are infidels. Thus,
wouldn’t it stand to reason that such Muslims might get angry over the
stationing of people whom they consider infidels near lands that they consider
sacred?
What would Rabinowitz
say about that? Again, we just don’t know.
Do you recall the sex-abuse
scandal at Abu Ghraib prison? There was a batch of videos that the U.S.
government ordered to be kept secret from the American people and the people of
the world. Apparently the videos contained things so horrific that U.S. military officials felt that disclosing
them would incite people in the Middle East to attack U.S. troops.
Doesn’t that imply that
people in the Middle East can get full of rage over U.S. government misconduct in that
part of the world?
What would Rabinowitz
say about that? Would she say that the U.S.
government was behaving in a silly manner in keeping those videos under wraps
because it is inconceivable that people in the Middle East might get angry over
the misconduct of U.S.
troops in the region?
Again, we just don’t
know because Rabinowitz failed to tell us.
Indeed, I can’t help
but wonder how Rabinowitz would respond to the fact that the anti-American
terrorists themselves, time after time, have pointed to the bad things the U.S. government has done in the Middle East as the root of their anger.
Go back, for example,
to Ramzi Yousef’s angry tirade to the federal judge at his sentencing hearing
for his role in the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade
Center. Or Osama bin
Laden’s fatwah against the United
States. Or the Ft. Hood
bomber. Or the Detroit
bomber. They all point to U.S. foreign policy as the source of their rage, not
hatred for rock and roll, religious liberty, freedom of speech, or any other of
America’s “freedom and values.“
What would Rabinowitz
say about that? We just don’t know.
Or maybe Rabinowitz
would say that motive just doesn’t matter. Maybe she would say that once the
terrorists attacked on 9/11, all that mattered was the wreaking of vengeance.
But wouldn’t that be a
short-sighted view? Establishing why someone did something might be important
in establishing policy that avoids such conduct in the future, which might go a
long way in avoiding any more loss of innocent life.
Consider a real-life
example of where establishing motive was important. After Timothy McVeigh’s
terrorist attack on the federal building in Oklahoma City,
libertarians pointed to what had motivated McVeigh to commit his act of
terrorism — the federal massacre of the Branch Davidians at Waco.
Statists, who wanted no
examination into what the feds had done at Waco (or at Ruby Ridge), leveled the same
type of nasty attack on libertarians that Rabinowitz has leveled on Ron Paul.
Trying to shut down any public discussion of the federal wrongdoing at Waco, the statists accused
libertarians of being justifiers. “You people are justifiers,“ they cried. “By
pointing to McVeigh’s motive, you’re justifying his conduct and you’re
sympathizing with him.“
But notice something
important about Waco and Oklahoma City. Thanks to the spotlight that
libertarians shone on Waco, there have been no
more Waco-type massacres of American citizens by U.S.
officials and, consequently, no more Oklahoma
City type of retaliatory terrorist attacks.
The principle is no
different with U.S.
foreign policy and anti-American terrorism. Dismantle the empire and end the
interventionism, and the anger and rage that motivates foreigners to retaliate
with terrorism disintegrates, which, by the way, would also eliminate the
excuse for taking away our rights and freedoms here at home in the name of
“keeping us safe.“
While we’re on the
subject of motive, is it possible that Rabinowitz’s motive in leveling her
superficial attack on Ron Paul was to dissuade Americans into examining and
questioning U.S. foreign policy, including such things as sanctions, foreign
aid, invasions, coups, occupations, kidnappings, support of dictatorships,
torture, secret prison camps, indefinite detention, kangaroo military
tribunals, out of control spending and debt, TSA porn scans and body groping,
the PATRIOT Act, telecom immunity, sneak and peek searches, and all of the
other deadly and destructive anti-freedom things that interventionists hold
dear?
Part 4
The most disgraceful —
but, at the same time, the most revealing and, also, the most ominous — aspect
of Wall Street Journal editorial board member Dorothy Rabinowitz’s attack on Ron Paul was when she accused Paul of being “the
best-known of our homegrown propagandists for our chief enemies in the world.”
That is one fascinating
and honest revelation of the interventionist mindset.
After all, let’s not
forget two important things about the country in which we now live:
(1) We
now live in a country in which the president, operating through his military
forces and the CIA, now wields the power to assassinate; and
(2) We now
live in a country in which the military wields the authority to round up
Americans and incarcerate them indefinitely in military facilities without
trial and treat them as terrorists.
What’s the standard by
which these powers are exercised? We don’t know. It’s classified. We’re not
permitted to know because to reveal the standard would, they tell us, threaten
“national security.”
But what we do know is
that one of the Americans they’ve assassinated was alleged to be precisely what
Rabinowitz has accused Ron Paul of being: a homegrown propagandist for our
chief enemies of the world.
That’s why President
Obama, the Pentagon, and the CIA assassinated American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki
— for being a homegrown propagandist for our chief enemies of the world.
And therein lies one of
the chief threats to a free society posed by interventionism.
And let me tell you
something: Rabinowitz is not some interventionist aberration. She’s a model for
the interventionist mindset. She is the epitome of the paradigm of foreign
interventionism.
In that one sentence,
Rabinowitz revealed the true essence of the interventionist mind — one that
conflates criticism of government policy with those who are violently resisting
the U.S.
government’s actions overseas. For her, they are obviously one and the same
thing.
After all, no one
seriously believes that Ron Paul has formally joined al Qaeda or the insurgency
in Afghanistan or the people
resisting U.S. drone attacks
in Pakistan, Yemen,
and elsewhere. Not even Rabinowitz believes that.
Then why would she say
that? Why would she accuse Paul of the precise thing that al-Awlaki was
assassinated for?
Because her mindset is
obviously such that when a person criticizes what the government is doing to
people overseas, the critic automatically has joined the other side.
Rabinowitz accused Ron
Paul of being “a homegrown propagandist for our chief enemies of the world”
because she honestly believes it. And the reason she believes it is based on
nothing more than Paul’s criticism of the U.S. government’s policies abroad.
This is one of the big
reasons that we libertarians have been opposing the enemy-combatant doctrine
ever since it was adopted immediately after 9/11. We have consistently
maintained that you can’t trust the president, the military, and the CIA with
the decision as to who is guilty of terrorism and who isn’t. That’s what a
criminal trial is for — to determine who is guilty of a crime and who isn’t.
And if anyone doubts whether terrorism is in fact a federal criminal offense,
all he need do is go look at the U.S. Code or visit any number of federal
courts across the land in which people have been indicted and are being
prosecuted for terrorism.
Equally important, we
have repeatedly emphasized that whenever a country’s ruler, along with his
military and intelligence forces, wields these types of omnipotent powers,
officials inevitably begin perceiving critics of the regime as part of the
enemy forces. Thus, the round-ups, the detention, the torture, and the
executions inevitably expand to encompass critics of the regime, especially
during “crises” or “emergencies,” when the citizenry is frightened.
Look at Egypt,
where the U.S.-supported military dictatorship absolutely refuses to give up
the same powers that are now wielded by Obama, the Pentagon, and the CIA. Those
are the same powers that angered the Egyptian people to such an extent that
they violently revolted against the tyranny of their own government. For 30
years, Egypt’s
military dictatorship has used those powers to round up and incarcerate critics
and dissidents, torture them, and execute them.
And all in the name of
“national security,” “order and stability,” and “keeping the people safe.”
Oh, and don’t forget —
these 30-year-old emergency powers were supposed to be only temporary. To this
day, Egypt’s military dictatorship, said to be the friend of the people, has
bared its fangs by absolutely refusing to give up its power to round up people
as “terrorists” (and as “drug dealers”), incarcerate them without trial,
torture them, and execute them — the same power now wielded by the president
and the Pentagon here in the United States as part of their “war on terrorism.”
And, hey, the mindset
of the Egyptian military is the same as the interventionist mindset in America.
A critic of the regime is an enemy of the regime. By criticizing the regime, he
has joined the other side. He has become a propagandist for the nation’s
enemies. He needs to be treated accordingly. How else can “national security”
be preserved? How else can “order and stability” be maintained? How else can
“the people be kept safe?”
And make no mistake
about it: Deep down, the people in the Pentagon and the CIA share the
Rabinowitz mindset. After all, let’s not forget who’s been supporting,
cooperating, training, funding, and cozying up to Egypt’s totalitarian military
regime for the last 30 years.
Yes, the Pentagon and
the CIA. That’s because they’ve believed in the Egyptian military dictatorship.
They’ve favored what that dictatorship has been doing for the past 30 years.
After all, what better way to protect “national security” and “establish order
and stability” and “keep people safe” than by silencing people who are
objecting to the totalitarian policies under which they are living?
And it’s not as though
the Pentagon and the CIA were unaware of the Egypt’s military dictatorship’s
excellent system for torturing people. They were fully aware of it given that
they have chosen Egypt’s military dictatorship to be one of their foreign
torture partners, a partnerships in which Egyptian military goons torture
people that U.S. officials send to them for that purpose.
No American should have
any pretensions on whether the Pentagon and the CIA will follow whatever orders
the president issues, especially in the midst of an “emergency” or “crisis.”
They loyally followed orders to round up Americans and cart them away to
concentration camps in World War II. They loyally followed orders to arrest,
incarcerate, and torture American citizen Jose Padilla, after his removal from
the jurisdiction of the federal courts. They loyally followed orders to
assassinate American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. They have loyally followed orders
to incarcerate indefinitely without trial, torture, and execute a large number
of foreign citizens. They have loyally followed orders to sanction, invade, and
occupy countries that have never attacked the United States or even threatened to
do so, killing and maiming countless people in the process.
Make no mistake about
it: To protect our “national security” and to maintain “order and stability”
and to “keep us safe” — especially in an “emergency” or “crisis” — the military
and the CIA will follow whatever orders the president issues to them. In their
mind, by doing so they will be “supporting and defending the Constitution” and
the “rights and freedoms we all enjoy as Americans.”
The Rabinowitz mindset,
as manifested in her piece that the Wall Street Journal knowingly,
deliberately, and intentionally chose to publish, constitutes a perfect
revelation of the grave danger to freedom that Americans now face under the
government’s omnipotent power to round up Americans and to assassinate
Americans. It is the same threat that the Egyptian people face. And the Chinese
people. And the North Korean people. And the Cuban people. It is the threat
that people living under totalitarian regimes throughout history have had to
face.
It is the very real
danger in which critics of government policy are viewed as enemies of the state
— people who have joined the other side — fifth columnists — people who have
crossed the line and become propagandists for the nation’s enemies — people who
need to be dealt with accordingly by the nation’s military and intelligence
forces, whose mission is to protect “national security,” “maintain order and
stability,” and “keep the people safe.”
What follows the
round-ups, incarceration, torture, and execution is oftentimes silence — a
deafening silence as the rest of the citizenry realize what lies in store for
them if they protest the treatment of those who have already been forced into
the concentration camps, the military dungeons, the torture chambers, and the
execution rooms.
It is tremendously
encouraging that interventionists are openly attacking Ron Paul for his foreign
policy views — views that mirror those of America’s Founding Fathers — and, in
the process, revealing their interventionist mindsets. It shows that the
interventionists are getting nervous about the fact that increasing numbers of
Americans are finally recognizing that the interventionists have brought us
nothing but moral debauchery, economic depression, financial bankruptcy, and
ever-increasing loss of our rights and freedoms and who are now wishing to
restore a free, peaceful, harmonious, and prosperous society and a constitutional
republic to our land.
Jacob
Hornberger is founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.
Email #3
Nick
Here
is an interesting article. I’ve highlighted some parts that are most important
to understand.
Ron
Paul Vindicated on Iran
(Unfortunately)
JAN 5 2012, 5:22 PM ET 32
A week ago
Ron Paul tried to convey how the ever-tightening sanctions on Iran--which may soon include an embargo on its oil--look from an Iranian
point of view: It's as if China
were to blockade the Gulf of Mexico, he
said--"an act of war".
This is sheer conjecture; Ron Paul is no expert on Iran. But now someone who does have
relevant credentials has weighed in, and the picture he paints is disturbingly
reminiscent of the one Paul painted. It suggests we may be closer to war than
most people realize.
Vali Nasr, in addition to being a
highly respected expert on the Middle East,
belongs to a family that, according to Lobelog's sources, has "a
direct line into Iranian Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's inner circle." In a Bloomberg View piece that is getting a lot of attention, Nasr
reports that "Iran
has interpreted sanctions that hurt its oil exports, which account for about
half of government revenue, as acts of war." Indeed, the Iranian
leadership now sees U.S.
policy as "aimed at regime change."
In this light, Iran's recent threats--notably that it will
close the Strait of Hormuz in response to an
oil embargo--shouldn't be dismissed, says Nasr. "The regime in Tehran is ready for a
fight."
The good news is that Nasr thinks
war can be averted. The bad news is that to accomplish this America and other Western powers need to
"imagine how the situation looks from Tehran"--not exactly
a favorite pastime among American politicians these days.
Still, if only for the intellectual
exercise, let's do try to imagine what things look like from Iran's point of view.
Iran's nuclear
scientists have recently evinced a tendency to get assassinated, and a
mysterious explosion at a military facility happened to kill the general in
charge of Iran's
missile program. These things were almost certainly done by Israel, possibly with American
support. If you were Iranian, would you consider assassinations on your soil
grounds for attacking the suspected perpetrators?
Well, we know that some notable
Americans think assassinating people on American soil is punishable by war. After the
alleged Iranian plot to assassinate a Saudi Ambassador in Washington
was uncovered, Bill Kristol (whom you may recall from our previous run-up to a
disastrous war)recommended that
we attack Iran.
But I'm guessing that if I tried
this Iran-America analogy out on Kristol, he might detect asymmetries. For
example: We're us, whereas they're just them.
Underlying our Iran strategy is the assumption
that if we keep ratcheting up the pressure, the regime will eventually say
uncle. A problem with this premise is that throughout human history rulers have
shown an aversion to being seen by their people as surrendering. Indeed, when
you face dissent, as the Iranian regime does, there's actually a certain appeal
to confronting an external threat, since confrontation tends to consolidate
domestic support. As Nasr puts it, "the ruling clerics are responding with
shows of strength to boost solidarity at home."
This doesn't mean Iran's rulers haven't wanted to
make a deal. But it does mean the deal would have to leave these rulers with a
domestically plausible claim to have benefited from it, and it also means these
leaders can't afford to be seen begging for the deal. When
President Ahmadinejad visited New
York last year, he gave reporters unmistakable signals that he wanted to negotiate, but the Obama
administration chose to ignore them. After Ahmadinejad "went home
empty handed," reports Nasr, power increasingly shifted to Iranians who
argued for confrontation over diplomacy.
Even so, Iran's
foreign minister made another appeal to re-open talks only days ago, suggesting
that they be held in Turkey.
But, as the New York Times reported, western nations interpreted this
overture "as an effort by Iran
to buy time to continue its program." Got that? If Iranians refuse to
negotiate it means they don't want a deal, and if they ask to negotiate it
means they don't want a deal.
Nasr says the tightening of the
screws is making Iran
increasingly determined to get nuclear weapons--not to start a war, but to
prevent one. Having seen what happened to Muammar Qaddafi, says Nasr, Iran's
leaders worry that foreign powers would "feel safe enough to interfere in
the affairs of a non-nuclear-armed state."
This is the kind of thing Ron Paul presumably had in mind when he said Iran may want nuclear weapons in
order to get some "respect." But hey, what does Ron Paul know?
Email #4
Victor
Nick,
I assume that this subject is for discussion by all
addressees, so I reply to all.
Some time ago we discussed Ron Paul using our own arguments.
Now we are exchanging articles and clips supporting our points of view. I guess
they are still diverting in terms of foreign policies of the US.
Let me answer to the points made in the article below.
First, about "declaration of war" or "act of
war" that oil embargo would mean to Iranians, particularly to ayatollahs.
The author put this suggestion in a context that has no reference to the
history of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Why not we consider first actual acts
of war committed by Iran, specifically by the Revolutionary Guards, against the
US in Lebanon in 80-ies (bombing of the Marines with number of casualties
running in hundreds), or against Argentina in 90-ies (bombing of Jewish
community center in buenos aires), or against Israel in form of providing
Hezbollah and Hamas with weapons. Iran
has been on the US
terrorist list for a long time... So what was the response to these acts?
unfortunately, very little. Mostly investigations. I think that made Iranian
regime think that it can go unpunished. So the threat of oil embargo, - as a
response to the A bomb development, - does not look like "an act of
war". It is rather a sign of international pressure. A serious one, so
Iranians take it seriously. This is what the West wants.
Throughout the years, Iran
openly declared its intensions towards Israel, namely annihilation of the
Jewish state. It stated this goal in the UN! First time in the history of this
organization. Similar threat were directed towards the West. I think it should
be taken seriously, without discount for rhetoric.
Secondly, the author sarcasm regarding the West not willing
to negotiate with Iran,
is ridiculous.
Iran
has used this tactic several times before, just to buy time. Like North Korea has
done.
I am putting these arguments here to tell you that Ron Paul
is not right when he says that the US is to blame. Opposite,
Iran is an evil state and US retreat is
dangerous. We should defend our interests and prevent Iran from
obtaining nuclear weapons because it will use it as declared.
I know that "what if" does not work with history,
but it seems to me Ron Paul would never send American troops to Europe to fight Nazis. It would be "overstepping the
Constitution" for him.
And therefore the US could have been on the wrong
side of history.
I remain in my position: Ron Paul' foreign policy is
irresponsible and insane.
I have read your previous, much larger previous message
regarding Ron Paul too. We will discuss it separately later.
Email #5
Cameron
You
know... the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction still applies today. If Iran were to use a nuclear bomb on Israel \ at any point in the future, Israel would respond by utterly destroying Iran.
Paul
recognizes this, but he also recognizes the cause and effect of Iran's 'mental'
state towards other nations: the gov't is scared that the rest of the world is
ganging up on it. How would you feel if every country started an embargo
against America?
If you're
going to stand up to a bully, you have to be able to defend yourself
physically.
Email #6
Victor
The deterrence concept of
MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) can be applied only if both sides DO NOT
WANT TO DIE. This was the case for Soviet Union vs. the US because both
countries did not want to be destroyed but at the same time kept their nuclear
arsenals ready as a deterrent.
The concept is not
applicable to Iran,
and for this matter, to other radical Shiite countries and movements. It is in
their believes that the 13th prophet will return and he will come
when the country is annihilated. It is like a suicide terrorist’s believing
that death will bring him/her to the paradise with a certain number of virgins
to please. Here I am touching upon a sharp distinction between the Western
Civilization and Radical Islamic World. Pro-life vs. pro-death.
Ganging up against Iran has its
roots. It has a long history of gradual international isolation and
condemnation of this country by the most of the world, - for committing and
supporting terrorism, numerous human rights violations, open call for
destruction of another member of the UN, building an A-bomb.
You asked about our
feelings if the US
faces embargo. Well, remember history? We have already experienced it in
70-ies, when the Arab countries and OPEC imposed oil embargo on the US… Did we
declared war or attack them? Nope… American response was … economy cars with
lower gas consumption!
We stuck with Iran. Ron
Paul’s position is much wider. He is against the US role in the world as a
“policeman”, with a bad connotation attached to this world, like a bully.
I support the idea of United States
being an only force defending the West interests around the world. Who else? Europe is not capable of it. You call this “a policeman
or a bully” , I called it “a defender of the West”.
And this is the root
cause of our disagreement, - how we envision the role of this country. My
position that America,
- although making some mistakes and sometimes preferring national interests at
the expense of supporting democracy, - does most good to the world.
I wrote that Ron Paul
wouldn’t send GIs to Europe during WWII. Let
me expand it. He even wouldn’t sent troops to fight the Japanese! I see clearly
his logic, “Pearl Harbor was just a response to the trade war between the US and Japan. The attack was a legitimate
action against American bullying”.
How do you like it? J
Several words about Ron
Paul attractiveness, especially for young people. I think it is because he is a
radical in some sense. He wants drastic measures, radical changes. And because
young people are typically rebels and radicals, it rings a bell for them.
I liked, and still like,
his ideas about the Constitution, limited government, liberties. I think a good
infusion of these ideas into somebody would make a very good Republican
candidate against Obama. But I do not like his foreign policy ideas and how he
sees the US
in world.
Email #7
Nick
Doing
a Google search for ‘"13th prophet" Ahmadinejad’ only gave me 14
links (only 2 pages of links). Of those, none were articles or primary sources
supporting this claim; only people claiming that he said that. If you can
provide me with primary sources explaining Iran’s interest in bringing back
the 13th prophet, something I couldn’t find on google with a vague
search that normally turns up millions of hits for almost any subject, id
certainly read it.
Regarding
WWII, Paul said in this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k0u_v9T0F8)
that US involvement in WWII
was unavoidable, but that WWII was caused by WWI, because the provisions in the
Treaty of Versailles caused Germany
to be in an economic catastrophe, which was worsened by the Great Depression,
thus allowing Hitler to ascend to power. This is a fact supported historically.
I
did some research on the quote that Ahmadinejad supposedly wanted to “wipe Israel
off the face of the Earth”. This actually IS a mistranslation, and I can verify
this in several ways.
2.)
I have an Iranian friend in school whose older brother got into Princeton University at the age of 17 because he
solved a math theorem that eluded the smartest mathematicians on the planet;
this is just to put the reputation of this family into context. He (my Iranian
friend) is very well educated and enjoys listening to classical music; in fact,
it’s essentially all he listens to. His family is Baha’i. He HATES Ahmadinejad.
Absolutely detests him. However, I asked him to take a look at the 2005 quote
that this statement allegedly came from. I asked him because he is fluent in
Farsi, and because he hates Ahmadinejad, I expected him to confirm what the
media always claims to be the true interpretation of the quote.
It
turns out that that was not the case. According to him, Ahmadinejad was calling
for regime change in Israel.
He was NOT calling for annihilation of any kind, or attacks of any kind. He was
calling for regime change just like the US
called for regime change in Iraq
and Iran.
Although he admits that Ahmadinejad often says very stupid things, he never
threatened to attack anyone.
I
would be very wary of what the media claims to be true. There have been many
lies and disinformation spread by the media, which is a major reason why I
rarely watch news on the TV. I used to watch Fox, but then I discovered all the
lies that they say and as a result turned away from them and all other
mainstream media outlets. Instead, I get my news online where I can easily fact
check any possible inconsistencies.
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep
saying it, and eventually they will believe it” - Hitler
I also
found out something interesting. It turns out that there is tension between
Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Cleric. They are at sharp disagreements because
supposedly Ahmadinejad is not doing a good job at representing Iran.
Ali Khamenei, the current cleric, will soon be dead as he has health problems,
and Ahmadinejad’s term will expire in 2013. There was a recent revolution in
2009 that was nearly successful. If you watched the documentary on Iran that I
sent you in my previous video, you would see that most Iranians, particularly
the young, which make up more than a third of the population, dislike the
Islamic law and would also like regime change. In my opinion, US intervention would jeopardize a
natural Iranian revolution that is bound to happen soon anyway. If the US intervenes, then the Iranian regime will
retain its power for many more decades to come, as the reason it was put there
in the first place was to deter US
involvement. However, since that regime is already unpopular in its own
country, a revolution will soon come and, very likely, a new democratic regime
will replace it. I personally don’t want to go to war against Iran based on a mistranslation. It
would be like Vietnam
all over again, but even worse.
Also, to
clarify Ron Paul’s position, as he can sometimes be in inarticulate messenger,
he does NOT want Iran
to get a nuclear weapon. If he had his way, nukes would be banned worldwide
forever. He just doesn’t want to jump the gun and attack Iran pre-emptively based on a SUSPISION that
they MIGHT be developing their FIRST nuke (Israel has at least 100). However,
he is trying to understand why Iran
would want a nuke. Obviously they’re not going to use it according to the info
above. What are some reasons why countries get nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons
give a country respect and protect it from enemies. Currently, Iran is surrounded by US military bases, and we have at
least 10,000 nukes. The US
intervened in 1953 by removing the democracy, and attempted to do it again in
1979 as well but failed. Now it is calling for a regime change, is placing
sanctions on Iran
even thought it hasn’t actually done anything, and threatening to attack it. Of
course they would feel threatened! US
track record has shown intervention in this country, and nations with nuclear
arms are respected (look at Pakistan
and India).
Just because a country desires a nuke doesn’t mean its going to use it. In
fact, the only country to have ever used nukes is the US! And that was, and still is, a
very controversial action.
Email #8
Nick
If the US is so staunchly against regimes that violate
human rights, why does it support China
and Saudi Arabia?
And why
did it pass the NDAA declaring the US a warzone and allowing for
indefinite detention of American citizens without charges or a trial? (guilty
before proven innocent). This was supported by Obama and McCain.
OPEC was
formed because the West was getting Middle Eastern oil far below what it was
actually worth (this is called a scam, or ripping someone off). When Iran, under Mozadegh, tried to negotiate with Britain to split the profits 50/50 (an attempt
at a fair deal), Britain
refused. If oil was bought for a fair and reasonable price, OPEC would
never have existed, just as if factory bosses in the 1800’s paid their workers
fairly, labor unions would never exist.
If the US
supports Democracy around the world, why did it overthrow many Democratically
elected leaders?
US intervention in
various countries has caused many civilian casualties. Here’s a list of a few.
1954
– US overthrows Democratically elected President Arbenz of Guatemala
Cost:
200,000 civilians killed
Vietnam
War – 1 - 2.5 MILLION civilians killed
1973
– US stages coup in Chile.
Democratically elected President Salvador Allende is assassinated. Dictator
Augusto Pinochet comes to power
Cost:
5,000 civilians killed
1977
– US supports military rulers in El Salvador
Cost:
70,000 civilians killed
1981
– US supports Contras in Nicaragua
Cost:
30,000 civillians killed
1989
– US overthrows ex CIA agent
and President of Panama
Manuel Noriega
Cost:
3,000 civilians killed
1991 –
2000 – US bombs Iraq
on a weekly basis, knocking out electricity, water filtration plants,
infrastructure, etc.
Cost:
over 1 MILLION die of bombing, starvation, and disease
I don’t
see this as justifiable in any way, shape, or form. These acts cannot be
defended, and these are NOT simple mistakes. A mistake would be ONE missed
target. This is flawed POLICY, not a mistake. And if it was a mistake, they
would have corrected their actions after the first time after seeing how much
of a toll intervention is on civilians in the region in which they intervene.
Interesting
Analysis of the causes of suicide Terrorism
Email #9
Victor
I finally found some time
to answer your question. You are still using Iran as an best example of “wrong”
American foreign policy to support Ron Paul’s position of American withdrawal
based on wrongdoing (I would understand it if he suggested it based on reduction
of the government and therefore withdrawal from active foreign policies and
“interference”.)
Best reference on Iran history
and relationship between Islam and the West could be found in the book by an
American scholar Bernard Lewis,
Bernard Lewis, "Islam and the
West", Oxford University Press, New York, 1993.
You can read a short essay on Iranian
Islamic fundamentalism in Wikipedia (red highlighting by me),
In June 2007, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was
criticized by some Iranian parliament members over his remark about
Christianity and Judaism. According to Arab News Agency, President Ahmadinejad
stated: "In the world, there are deviations from the right path:
Christianity and Judaism. Dollars have been devoted to the propagation of these
deviations. There are also false claims that these [religions] will save
mankind. But Islam is the only religion that will save mankind." Some
members of the Iranian parliament criticized these remarks as being fuels to
religious war. However Musa Ghorbani, a chairman of the parliament, strongly
supported the president's remark, calling it "in accordance with the
constitution".[158][159] Also Hossein Noori
Hamedani advocates fighting the Jews in order to prepare the ground and to
hasten the advent of the Hidden Imam, the Messiah according to Shiite
belief.[160]
The Iranian Revolution (also known as
the Islamic Revolution,[28][29][30][31][32][33] Persian: انقلاب
اسلامی,
Enghelābe Eslāmi) was the revolution that transformed Iran from a monarchy
under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to an Islamic republic under Ayatollah
Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution and founder of the Islamic
Republic.[34] It has been called "the third great revolution in
history", following the French and Bolshevik revolutions,[35] and an event
that "made Islamic fundamentalism a political force ... from Morocco to
Malaysia."[36]
References on 12 prophets (imams) and on a so-called
hidden imam are here,
The role of Imam al-MahdiMain article: Muhammad al-Mahdi
See also: Mahdi
In Twelver eschatology, Muhammad ibn Hasan ibn ʻAlī,
or al-Mahdi (مهدي
transliteration: Mahdī, also Mehdi, "Guided One"), is the twelfth
Imam and the Mahdi, the ultimate savior of mankind and prophesied redeemer of
Islam. Twelvers believe that the Mahdi has been hidden by God (referred to as
The Occultation) and will later emerge to change the world into a perfect and
just Islamic society alongside Jesus (Isa) before the Yaum al-Qiyamah (literally "Day of the Resurrection" or "Day
of the Standing").
In short, Iran officially
promotes Islamic fundamentalism which has apocalyptic vision of “return of the
hidden Imam” and destruction.
As you read above,
Iranians need to prepare the land to his coming by purging it from Jews. That’s
why president and other authorities in Iran OPENLY declare that Israel should
be wiped out of the map… Well, they are not friendly towards the West too as
you know.
If you are still insist
that the US policies made Iran
fundamental, think about how and why Iranian revolution happened. It was
anti-Shah, anti-despotism movement. Clerics took control of the revolution
later on, hijacking the popular movement.
As for American
involvement, it was strong when a Shah’s premier minister, being pro-communist,
started reforms and nationalization. Strong communist party was a threat to the
state at the time. CIA help to overthrow premier-minister, and was done easily
because Iranian communists betrayed him…
Email #10
Victor
I have read this long
list, a mix of American interventions and number of victims, not necessary of
American actions.
After this lamenting,
could you please formulate, based on this selected and incomplete(*) list of US
actions, what was and is American foreign policy? How would you formulate its
goal? In short, why America
is so evil?
Any idea?
Looking forward for your explanation.
Remember, the favorite explanation of the Left is “It was in interests of
American monopolies”.
You can do better than
that; I expect facts from you.
Victor
(*) By “incomplete” I
mean you did not bother with listing any pro-democracy actions, e.g. as support
Eastern Europeans and Baltic Republics in their struggle against communism,
help to fight SU in Afghanistan, Balkan War, Korean War, Marshal Plan,
MacArthur Plan for Japan, recent events in Libya, etc. Or maybe you consider
these actions not good too?
Email #11
Nick
If there’s anything that you absolutely have to watch, it’s
this documentary on the relationship between US and war. As a favor to me,
please watch the whole thing.
“Why We Fight”
The fact that the government repeatedly lies to us and keeps
things secret from us is enough of a reason to suspect that, usually when it
goes to war, it is not for the best interest of the American people nor for the
people in that region. There may be a few exceptions, but in general, this is
sadly the case. Of the interventions you showed me in the last email, only the
Korean and Balkan interventions seemed to have either neutral or positive
outcomes. Libya
is now ruled by Al-Qeida, a group which is not a good alternative to Quadaffi.
Military intervention has caused more problems than it has fixed. If the
government truly went to war with the interests of the American people in mind,
it would have followed the constitution and it wouldn’t have been so secretive.
The fact that it has ignored that founding document constantly over the last 50
years proves to me that there is some other interest in mind. I’d like to
believe that the US
government has never done anything wrong and that it always supported freedom
for others and always supported democracies, but the fact is that those were
just words, and the actions, for the most part, are contradictory.
I simply don’t understand how the US can send food, money
and aid to some people while at the same time bombing others who, for the most
part, are innocent (obviously that’s not the goal, but innocent people make up
95% of the casualties, and you’d think they would have changed strategies by
now). An Iraqi who lived through the 90’s, a period of perpetual US bombing and
sanctions that killed a million people, will not remember the US as a force for good. He will not
remember how the US affected
Europe through the Marshall Plan or how it
saved people in the Balkans. He will remember how a US
drone killed his family and how the US
government prevented medicine that could have cured his children’s ailments
from entering the country; how US
policy directly affected him. This is where the anti-American sentiment comes
from, and we need to understand that if we have any hope of changing things.
This is the precise reason I bring up US actions that have a
negative effect on the world. It upsets me how US policy is such a double
standard. It upsets me that our image is tarnished through terrible actions
like this. I don’t want the US
to be portrayed as the bully. I don’t want the US to be hated. I don’t want the US to
be attacked. But the only way to change that is to address its flawed policy.
Otherwise we will remain in this perpetual state of warfare and totally
ignorant of the true causes and the effects that it has on people in the
affected countries. This is not a leftist position, this is the constitutional
position. If the constitution is to the left of the current Republicans, then
that should tell you something about the Republican party. I don’t pick sides
when it comes to political parties, so don’t think that I’m a leftist or a
rightist, or a centrist. I’m a realist.
On a side note, the US government classified 16 million
documents Top Secret in 2011. Does that mean that 16 million documents can
compromise American security, so they have to be hidden?
