Ron Paul vs. the world
During the New Hampshire Republican debates, Ron Paul asserted that radical Islam is related to our foreign policy. He gives our bases in Saudi Arabia as a specific example, and then asks the audience to imagine how they would feel if a well-intentioned China invaded America.
He's not just disagreed with by the rest of the field--he's laughed at, mocked and ignored by the other candidates. Giuliani and Romney say that Islamic terror has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with any of the US's actions.
Now, I know you can't get up on stage and give the history of 9/11 and our involvement in the Middle East, but isn't saying that Islamic terror has NOTHING to do with our foreign policy a little...insane? You could at least grant that they were RELATED without saying that we were responsible...couldn't you?
No major candidate in either party will deal with the current geopolitical position we're in honestly.
posted by CharlesPeirce @ 9:23 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
If I had to pick a side, I'd say Giuliani and Romney are more right than Ron Paul on this. I mean, it's not like the entirety of the Middle East in the Seventh Century had a carrier group stationed in the Gulf provoking Muhammad.
Has Islam ever peacefully coexisted in sweet pluralism? Not exactly.
Does stationing troops in the Middle East exacerbate the situation? Most definitely.
Would pulling troops out end Islamic Terrorism? No.
Would it lessen it? I'd say probably not?
Wait. So are you saying that we should overthrow the Obama administration and install Ron Paul as a godking?
Post a Comment
<< Home