I had an interesting conversation with a Ron Paul supporter last night. This distinguished gentlemen, and a very good friend of mine, is supporting Paul in the GOP. In his words, when it comes down to it he agrees with Paul on the most important of issues. However, my main complaint with Paul hopefully stuck in the mind of my friend, and my arguments for why one should not Paul remained in my thoughts while I notching support bars at work today.
I do not think supporters of Paul understand that their support of him, aligns themselves with the liberal left on foreign policy. Paul supporters in fact have much in common with Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and even Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. Inspiring isn't it?
One does not have to agree with the war in Iraq to understand America's role in the world today. Ever since the Monroe Doctrine, America felt some sort of an obligation to protect free nations from tyranny against their will. Yes America has made many mistakes, and one can spend the entire day arguing over the actions of Bush in Iraq, however the reasons for entering the war are completely irrelevant. The issue now is the present.
Today isolationists like Paul, and liberals like Clinton cry out for our immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Although I wish as much as anyone for the troops to return, such an action would be disastrous for our reputation for freedom and our commitment to victory.
Why do liberals always want us to run? Why did they cry out for appeasement for Russia, a pull out from Vietnam, and now an abandonment of the War on Terror? Why did Bill Clinton decide to run so quickly out of Somalia, a move that only emboldened Islamic terrorists?
To run after so many lives have been in Iraq lost is simply disgraceful to our military. Without America's commitment to freedom and peace in the Middle East, the entire region will be lost. Perhaps this is a futile effort, but it is one America must finish until there is no more hope for success.
What does this have to do with me? If America had not been committed to fighting tyranny for freedom, we would have never fought Hitler in WWII. We would never have established and later died for freedom in Korea. Without this commitment, I exist as one in millions of poor, destitute, and hopeless people enslaved under some form of Far Eastern tyrannical government. Not only has America's 'imperialistic" action given me a shot at freedom, our character and compassion, expanding to those of other nations, has given me the opportunity to live here, raised within a Christian family and church, and in turn allowing for the gift of salvation.
Were America the kind of nation Clinton, Obama, and Paul envision, it is highly unlikely that I ever have the opportunity America presents me. It is even more unlikely, that I receive the salvation found within Jesus Christ adoption offered me. This is not a result a luck, rather a plan no doubt carried out by Someone with a higher purpose for America than an idealistic nation that minds its own business.
I apologize for the length of the post. My point is simple. Before you embrace the idea of people like Paul and Michael Moore, think back to the gift of freedom. Perhaps for some of you, it is easy to take for granted. It is cliche to wave the flag and sing God Bless America But for others like me, it is something I live with gratefulness to my God and country every day.
May America continue to protect the freedom she possesses, and offers to almost anyone who also desires it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It's always fun to watch people call Rep. Paul an Isolationist when the correct term is non-interventionist.
I was stationed at Osan A.B. Korea and enjoyed the Korean people immensely, but isn't there some point at which we as American's are supposed to step back and allow Korea, Japan and the Philipines to run their own military without American's having to foot the bill?
How about Germany, do we still need a military presence there as well?
We are on the same path with Iraq. We as a nation will be required to pony up more hundred of Billions of dollars to protect Iraq all in the name of Oil and yes I do believe that Oil is the only reason we are in the Middle East. We need only look at Darfur and why we aren't involved there.
Spending six years in the Air Force taught me a lot as well as working for Pacific Electro Dynamics and Texas Instrument. Both companies proved to me that manufacturing for the US Government was always a win/win situation. They were always guaranteed a profit, no matter how badly they mis-managed a military contract.
Maybe those that support Rep. Ron Paul are tired of being lied too by our Congress and President?
And when our government says they are looking out for our best interest by eliminating Writs of Habeas Corpus, I must disagree. If you truly think that the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act of 2002 or the Military Commissions Act of 2006 are good for Americans, I truly wonder what in your mind would be considered, wrong for Americans.
And as a Christian myself, maybe I just have decided I would rather follow someone that isn't a crook, liar, adulterer, warmonger or thief. That I would be a hypocrite if I continued believe in Christ as my savior but blindly followed the Bill Clinton's and George Bush's of the world.
Argh, I'm sorry, Matt, but I don't think I agree with a lot of what're saying here...I'm a bit troubled by your statement about how it's America's responsibility to fight tyranny, even when it's against "their" will. If you're talking about the will of the American people, then I *definitely* disagree with you because the American public is supposed to have control over the government, and when the government goes against the will of the people it is malfunctioning and it's opening up the possibility of corruption. If, by "their," you were referring to the people of the country run by the tyrant, why should we help them if they don't want it? If they don't appreciate it, if they think we're going to ruin a way of life that they've grown accustomed to, why should we interfere and waste millions or even billions of dollars on a war that *no one* (except those who will benefit financially) approves of?
Yes, it might offer some people the opportunity to get into the US (and I'm glad you did) but if you were go grow up in Korea instead of in the US, do you really think that you'd regret having missed the opportunity? I'm not so sure. I think that you'd be somewhat content with the only life you could know - discontent can only arise when you know that there's something better out there (if you can even really call life in America "better").
As for the liberals "running away," they're really doing the smartest thing that they can. America's primary concern should be the safety of Americans, not of foreigners. If we start putting US soldiers at needless risk in a hopeless situation (as was the case with all of the conflicts that you mentioned), you're putting the needs of foreigners above the needs of Americans which makes absolutely no sense.
As for the whole Christian thing (and I'm afraid this might be a bit of a touchy topic) - if you were never brought to the US and never exposed to Christian ideology, would you really care? Probably not. Instead, you'd be happy that you knew the "truth" that was taught to you in Korea. How can you be sure that what your adopted parents have taught you is right? You really can't, and that's where faith comes in, but since members of every religion the world has ever known have had faith that they were right, what makes Christianity any different? At this point, I think that they're all just shots in the dark and we'll never know the truth while we're alive and, if we're lucky, we'll find out when we're dead. What if there's nothing when we're dead, though? We won't ever know, then.
If Americans are all about freedom, why don't we leave other countries to be free to operate as they always have? When America forces its own ideals upon other countries (*cough*Iraq*Somalia*Vietnam*Russia*Islam in general*cough) is that not a form of tyranny itself?
I think that a lot of Americans say the same thing you said in the last line of that post, but most don't really believe it - we don't *offer* it to anyone who desires it, we force it down the throats of anyone who doesn't have the same moral code as we do.
I do not think supporters of Paul understand that their support of him, aligns themselves with the liberal left on foreign policy.
...and I do not think you know what you are talking about. The Neocons running the GOP have far more in common with the leftwing when it comes to foreign policy. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. Liberals, on the other hand, are extremely pro-internationalist. They want to bolster US support for the UN, Law of the Sea Treaty, ICC and other international governmental organizations. Liberals have always been the party of war. Don't be fooled, the reason that they want out of Iraq is for political gain, not because of ideological continuity. Historically, the Republican Party has always been far less willing to get involved in international entanglements than the democrat party (Reference: WWI, WWII, League of Nations, Korea, Vietnam, UN). The roots of the Neocon foreign policy that you are espousing is directly traced to the democrat party of the first half of the 20th century.
You are completely in error to say that Ron Paul is no different from Cindy Sheehan. I think you should retract that statement.
Were America the kind of nation Clinton, Obama, and Paul envision, it is highly unlikely that I ever have the opportunity America presents me.
The validity of this statement hinges on one assumption--that the only way to bring about any kind of change in any country is through military action. Which, as I'm sure you will agree, is utterly false. Ron Paul is not anti-war or even anti-foreign relations. He believes, contrary to Neocons and Liberals, that the US can bring about international reform by using non-military means. Financially, we would be able to influence many, many more countries using that method than we would spending about $1,000,000,000,000 completely rebuilding another country.
Having debunked the absurdity of this post, let me give you a quick history lesson:
First, it was the GOP who wanted to pull out of Vietnam. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_nixon#Vietnam_War)
Second, the military action in Somalia was directed by the UN. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#1960s.E2.80.931990s)
Third, Ron Paul has demonstrated far more consistency in being against foreign entanglements. Unlike many of his democrat colleagues, he voted against the war in Iraq. Thus proving that Neocons have far more in common leftists on foreign policy than Ron Paul does.
In essence, Ron Paul is not an "isolationist"--he is a Constitutionalist.
Anonymous- I am not arguing that the US should not change all of its attitudes towards foreign policy. However it is vital we remain in Iraq until the job is completed. As a fellow Christian, I thank God for the opportunity to rest in His hands partially because of the United States. Although the mission of the US may not to be to spread the gospel, it is obvious that the Lord can work through many ways to extend His will.
Pascal- This is a response I'd like to have with you in person sometime.
G- First off I would recommend not citing wikipedia, most definitely not a reliable source of information. Liberals and non-interventionists like Wilson supported the idea for a league of nations. Although the views on foreign policy between ideologies has changed some, in general conservatives have been more than willing to protect American freedom through military action than liberals.
Get your history straight- Clinton pulled out of Somolia. A populist based president could not afford bad press from failed military action.
Shaheen and Paul support and immediate withdrawal of American troops. Therefore I stand by my comment.
There is more to say on all of this, but seriously... who has time to sit here and debate online?
Post a Comment