Ron Paul Revolution: Thoughts on the war: Does Iraq have the right to fail as a Democracy?

I was a strong Romney supporter until he left the presidential race. Now I am 100% behind the platform of Ron Paul of Texas.
How is that possible for a Bush supporter who has vocally supported the war and is a self described neo con? Wether we have a socialist like Bill Clinton using the American Military as a Meals on Wheels, or a George W. Bush using the military to support our Allies and financial interests, the fact is that the American Tax Payers have payed for all of this military intervention and our economy is shaky.
I believe it would be a wonderful experiment to see what would happen if we brought all of our troops home, placed them on our border, and focused on fixing our problems here on the homefront. And if anyone attacks us (terrorist or otherwise), we respond quickly and unapologetically with our military, wether the attack is in America or towards Americans abroad.
I agree with Dr. Paul that quote:

“They claim they will eventually get the troops out of Iraq, but the danger is that they simply plan to move them around to other countries, not bring them home.”

The last thing I want to see is our troops being used by the United Nations to help them set up a World Government. And the globalists in our government believe this is the year to take huge steps towards that goal. Dr. Paul is the only candidate left who will protect American Sovereignty and defend the constitution from the Socialists who are working overtime to get a someone elected who will further erode American Independence, and get our economy and people under the iron fist of an unelected world court and world government.
Conventional wisdom suggests that Ron Paul is not electable, but I will continue to cheer for him and his platform until he is completely out of the race.
A recent message from Ron Paul:


I agree with this analysis from Dr. Paul written today at WND
Monday, March 17, 2008
TEXAS STRAIGHT TALK
The crumbling U.S. empire
Ron Paul blames worthless currency, exhausted military for nation’s fall
Posted: March 16, 2008
6:57 pm Eastern
By Ron Paul

House Democrats recently adopted a budget with massive tax hikes, many of which are directed at those Americans who can least afford them.

By allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, this budget will raise income taxes not only on those in the highest income brackets, but raises the lowest bracket from 10 percent to 15 percent as well. Estates would again be taxed at 55 percent. The child tax credit would drop from $1,000 to $500. Senior citizens relying on investment income would be hurt by increases in dividend and capital gains taxes. It’s not just that the Democrats want to raises taxes on the rich; they want to raises taxes on everybody.

The problem is, policing the world is expensive, and if elected officials insist upon continuing to fund our current foreign policy, the money has to come from somewhere. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost us more than $1 trillion.

The Democrats’ budget gives the president all the funding he needs for his foreign policy, so one wonders how serious they ever were about ending the war. While Democrats propose to tax and spend, many Republicans aim to borrow and spend, which hurts the taxpayer just as much in the long run.

Supporting a welfare state is expensive as well. More than half of our budget goes to mandatory entitlements. The total cost of government now eats up more than half of our national income, as calculated by Americans for Tax Reform, and government is growing at an unprecedented rate. Our current financial situation is completely untenable, and the worst part is, as government is becoming more and more voracious, the economy is shrinking.

The bottom line is that Washington has a serious spending addiction. While both parties debate how to raise the revenue, both parties seem happy to spend more than $3 trillion of your money in various ways.

While some in Washington criticize the war in Iraq, very few are criticizing the interventionist mindset that got us into the war in the first place. Many so-called “Iraq war critics” criticize this administration rather than truly oppose the decades-old policies that led to war. They claim they will eventually get the troops out of Iraq, but the danger is that they simply plan to move them around to other countries, not bring them home. The American people want peace. Minding our own business is the best way to achieve it. Not only is it also a whole lot cheaper, but free trade and friendship with other countries benefits all involved.

This spending spree is exactly the wrong policy for an economy on the brink of recession. History has shown that all empires eventually crumble under a worthless currency and with an exhausted military.

Since too many of our nation’s leaders haven’t taken the time to learn from history, we are seeing mistakes repeated through recently enacted policies such as the new House budget.

I have spent the past few months thinking about Iraq and Afghanistan. I am not a military leader and I have not visited those countries. Nor do I know anyone who lives in those countries. But I have studied history. When I was pondering this blog entry last night, for some reason the documentary biography about Gandhi kept coming into my mind. I went to You Tube to find a couple of clips from the movie starring Ben Kingsley and share them with you dear reader to make a point.


Can anyone doubt that Indian Independance has been a resounding success???
The women in India are even getting into Unassisted Childbirth!
I suppose there are some members of the United Kingdom who even sixty years later believe it would have been best for the Brits to have stayed in India to “keep the peace”, and prevent the civil war that errupted once they left.
And the temptation to be the Peace Keepers of the world is a mighty temptation for the west.
Where to put the line between nation building, spreading democracy, and giving our brothers and sisters living under tyranny a helping hand to pull them out from under the boot of godless socialism and communism?
That is the great debate raging today.
How much should we who live in freedom do? How many lives lost? How much money spent? Will all of this effort be wasted if we pull out now? I know these are the questions that plague our society.
I am someone who believes it is a form of bigotry to say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves. That certain personalities and temperments are not fit for Democracy. This is the most crass form of bigotry, because it denies our God Given endowment as articulated in the Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I have been pleased to watch family and friends serve in Iraq, and have been grateful for the efforts of the American Military. And I do not want our soldiers pulled out before Iraq can take care of its own security. I acknowledge the efforts to help each province of Iraq to become independant and able to provide the rule of law for the citizens of Iraq. Some have said that Shia, Sunni, and Kurd cannot co-exist. I don’t know wether they can or not, I like to think they could. Some nations are not able to reconcile ethnic and religious differences, and that is why Pakistan came into existance after India became free.
Yet I have to listen to the words of Gandhi when thinking about Iraq and the future of the middle east:

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.”

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

So, who gets to decide when to step back and let the ebb and flow of democracy make a stand in the middle east? Some say that the next American President will be the one to decide, and so that means the future of Iraq is in the hands of the American Voter.
After thinking long and hard about this topic, going back and forth in my own mind, I have decided to side with Ron Paul on this issue. His stance is the Constitutional Rules of Engagement for war. His belief is the protectionist and isolationist view that has always been my political view. It is why I voted for Pat Buchanan a few years back, and why I was for Alan Keyes when he ran for president in 2000. I voted for Bush because he wanted to pull back from too much involvement in international affairs. And an Al Gore as president was nauseating.
I understand why President Bush took on the task of fighting jihad. And I am not naive about the threats to our security. Neo NeoCon, the blogger wrote a great piece about pacifism last year, and I agree with her analysis.
QUOTE:

“Cal Thomas has written an article at RealClearPolitics entitled “Unending War,” in which he discusses the tendency of Bush’s opponents to ascribe the longevity of the war against Iraq to the President’s warmongering desires. But Thomas rightly points out that the warriors who are really unlikely to give up until decisively defeated are our opponents in this war.”

All presidential candidates have outlined what they plan to do about the war if elected. I am curious to see what would happen if Ron Paul was elected and he brought our troops home and set in place his Foreign Policy of Freedom.
QUOTE:

“Ron Paul has always believed that foreign and domestic policy should be conducted according to the same principles. Government should be restrained from intervening at home or abroad because its actions fail to achieve their stated aims, create more harm than good, shrink the liberty of the people, and violate rights. Does that proposition seem radical? Outlandish or farflung? Once you hear it stated, it makes perfect sense that there is no sharp distinction between the principles of domestic and foreign policy. They are part of the same analytical fabric. What would be inconsistent would be to favor activist government at home but restraint abroad, or the reverse: restraint at home and activism abroad.

Government unleashed behaves in its own interests, and will not restrict itself in any area of life. It must be curbed in all areas of life lest freedom suffer. Ron Paul’s singular voice on foreign affairs has done so much to keep the flame of a consistent liberty burning in times when it might otherwise have been extinguished. He has drawn public attention to the ideas of the Founders. He has alerted people to the dangers of empire. He has linked domestic and foreign affairs through libertarian analytics, even when others have been bamboozled by the lies or too intimidated to contradict them. He has told the truth, always. For this, every American, every citizen of the world, is deeply in his debt. We can’t but be deeply grateful that Ron Paul’s prophetic words have been collected in this book. May it be widely distributed. May its lessons be absorbed by this and future generations.”

— Foreword to “A Foreign Policy of Freedom” by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
I have not turned my back on the war, nor do I believe that it has been a total failure or a mistake. I believe the Iraq war has been an important step in the fight against radical jihad, and something had to be done to avenge those who died on 9-11 and during the past attacks on our soil ie: the first world trade center attack and the oklahoma city bombing. (Read Jayna Davis: The Third Terrorist to learn of the middle east connection to the bombing of the Murrah federal building.) I have studied her work and believe Sadaam recruited two americans to assist with that bombing in the heartland of our country.
I am curious to see what General Petreus says at his congressional testimony next month. I KNOW that the surge is working, and I know that the hard work of our soldiers this past year made it happen.
Yet this analysis by Alain Gresh, editor of Le Monde diplomatique and a specialist on the Middle East makes me ponder and question stated goals for the future.

“So, does anybody care? As Michael Massing reported in The New York Review of Books, the US press group McClatchy set up an office in Baghdad and started a blog, “Inside Iraq,” dedicated to the lives of the ordinary Iraqis in whom the US press has no real interest. As troop casualties have fallen, US media coverage of the war has diminished, reinforcing the idea that the war is being won; if it’s not on television, it can’t be happening.

Leila Fadel, McClatchy’s bureau chief in Baghdad, said: “Americans believe their soldiers are working for the greater good. The Iraqis don’t see that. They see people who are here for their own self-interest — who drive the wrong way on roads, who stop traffic whenever they want to, who they have to be careful not to get too close to so that they won’t be shot.” A contributor to “Inside Iraq” described how US soldiers beat a schoolboy who threw a stone at them. Why had he thrown it? “These are foreign soldiers,” he said. “This is an occupation.” Fadel says it is a common feeling among Iraqis: “Everybody I speak to thinks this. They don’t have power in their own country.”

The late Jean-François Revel, of the French right, was outraged that the Iraqis did not turn out to greet their liberators with flowers. A few months after the invasion he wrote: “As in all Arab countries, the Iraqis demonstrate a generalised xenophobia, directed against all westerners… We are dealing with people who are incapable of governing themselves but who won’t let anyone else do it.”

US leaders were unable to understand the reaction of Iraqis: their rejection, despite their hatred of Saddam Hussein, of colonialism, rooted in a painful history and the memory of the long British occupation. The White House didn’t listen to Iraqis in 2003. Is it ready to listen now? Recent successes, however limited, have reduced domestic pressure on the Bush administration to withdraw troops, and have mollified international hostility. But this respite has not persuaded the outgoing president to change strategy; quite the contrary.

The UN mandate, finally granted to coalition forces in 2004, a year after the invasion, expires next December. The White House does not seek to renew it, preferring to replace it with a bilateral agreement (negotiations with the Iraqi government are expected to end before the summer). There is confusion about the nature of this agreement and the Senate has insisted on its right to ratify it; but the administration claims that since it does not explicitly cover US participation in the defence of Iraq or the construction of permanent bases, such ratification is unnecessary.”

Mr. Gresh’s analysis and acceptance of the Surge and the fact that it has reduced the violence in Iraq does make him a credible voice in my mind. I too question American plans to set up military bases and assign “Peacekeepers” in a region that has written its own constitution and has set up an elected government of the people. And while I have been proud that people like my brother made it happen by helping this new Democracy, I don’t like the overbearing assumption that they are not capable of doing it without our help. Our own Benjamin Franklin replied “a republic, if they can keep it” when asked what the Constitutional Congress had created. It may take Iraq a hundred years to reach a level of stability that feels like “peaceful co-existence of Kurd, Sunni, and Shia” to Americans. But I believe if the people of Iraq want to do the work of preserving their own toddling democracy, they should have the power and authority to do it in their own way without American Busybodys interfearence.
I agree with Dr. Paul, that our own troubles at home need our focus and attention. Our own republic is shaky And I would like to see a complete return to constitutional principles and accountability.
While I believe detente was a collasal failure and gave a wink and a nod to various muslim tyrants to do whatever they wanted at home, I believe the other extreme of American Nation Building that would stomp all over the rights of individual citizens of various countries is untenable and I personally don’t want to pay for it.
We are living in interesting times and I look forward to the upcoming election and am curious to see how it all plays out.
Jenny Hatch

Comments are closed.

  • Click to Drive for Uber in BoCo

  • Follow Jenny Hatch on Social Media

  • Home Making Video Tutorials by Jenny Hatch

  • Instagram

    My interview on the Freebirth Society Podcast is up on my blog.
Here I am at 41 weeks pregnant with Benjamin. His cousin Dylan was napping while I dozed and sipped raspberry leaf tea.
Cut and paste this link to listen to the podcast or buy one of my childbirth books: https://jennyhatch.com/2017/09/28/my-interview-with-emilee-saldaya-on-the-free-birth-society-podcast-jennyhatch/ These books were lovingly crafted for those couples searching for alternatives to hospital childbirth.
  • Click to listen to the Podcast!

%d bloggers like this: