Sunday, October 2, 2011
Ron Paul on Muslims
This is very refreshing; it seems Ron Paul is the only candidate these days willing to stick to his guns and say what is unpopular but true. Notice how he gets booed by teapartiers simply for quoting Al Qaeda's and Osama bin Laden's motives for the unfortunate attacks. I couldn't agree more with Ron Paul's statement that "we had been bombing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for ten years, would you be annoyed? If you're not annoyed then there's some problem."
Earlier this week, Ron Paul condemned the killing of American born al-Awlaki, calling it "assassination". This was again, another unpopular view with the mainstream pro-corporation, pro-war media. I really like that Ron Paul's whole stance on Islam and the wars fits in and is consistent with his views during his 12 term as congressman. There is no flip-flopping or taking the easy way out, it seems there is someone here who is willing to say the unpopular and wants to make America the way it was, post World War I, when Americans refused to join the League of Nations as proposed by president Woodrow Wilson. Maybe you cannot be a complete isolationist these days because of globalization, but I am all for giving smaller nations breathing space- let them prosper, and America will prosper.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul, even if he is old fashioned and socially conservative. At least he is willing to stick to his guns as you said. It's really sad that there's a group of people like this who will boo because they are so dedicated to believing that we are infallible and nothing we could have done was ever wrong, so it's everyone else's fault. Ron Paul's stance on this is definitely very respectable in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI share a similar respect for Ron Paul, but I wonder if his steadfast ways will come back to bite him come election time. I know that not many consider him a serious candidate for the Republican Ballot and I believe that is largely because of how he remains so strong and inflexible within his ideology.
ReplyDeleteSad to think that because someone's conviction in their beliefs may actually harm there chances of political success.
Since we wrote on largely the same issue (though, unsurprisingly, with rather different critical stances on Dr. Paul), I feel obligated to offer some brief thoughts here.
ReplyDeleteI'll grant that Dr. Paul is a vast, VAST improvement over the rest of the Republican field in this regard; the notion that simply calling out Islamophobia for what it is or insisting that it hurts our national security would be found laughable is patently ludicrous, and only demonstrates further proof of the sad state the Republican Party of America now languishes within.
But at the same time, I don't see how someone - whether religious or not - could abide by Dr. Paul's "non-interventionist" foreign policy in good conscience. I'm all-for cautioning the deployment of U.S. troops and championing diplomacy over armed conflict, but his insistence that, purely for example, we should withdraw from the United Nations and the International Criminal Court would not be conducive to those ends at all. If anything, it would only exacerbate the problem, particularly once another rightist hawk inevitably makes his/her way into the Oval Office.
Bush and his ilk were bad enough when they were merely denying international accountability; imagine someone like that who doesn't even have to CONSIDER international accountability. That's the world Dr. Paul's policies will produce, whether he and his fans are willing to recognize it or not.
Thank you for your thoughts.
- Kevin Chafe