How To Effectively Argue Against the War: Ron Paul’s Take

I’m no fan of Ron Paul, but this is brilliant (Scanlyze, emphasis mine):

MR. WALLACE: Congressman Paul — (interrupted by cheers, applause) — Congressman Paul, your position on the war is pretty simple: Get out. What about, though, trying to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out in a hurry? What about protecting the thousands of Iraqis who have staked their lives in backing the U.S.? And would you leave troops in the region to take out any al Qaeda camps that are developed after we leave?

REP. PAUL: The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They’ve been wrong on everything they’ve said. Why not ask the people — (interrupted by cheers) — why not ask the people who advise not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit.

Yes, I would leave, I would leave completely.

That’s a pretty scathing attack.  The people who argued for the Iraq war have a serious credibility problem.  Why believe them on any matters of security?  It also opens up a great positive tact:

why not ask the people who advise not to go into the region and into the war?

The anti-war crowd has long pushed for practical solutions like diplomacy.  And for all the assholes who will counter “Diplomacy doesn’t work!  Sanctions don’t work!”  I’d say “And the war did?”.  Diplomacy also has the benefit of attacking rather than aiding fundraising and recruiting efforts by Al Qaeda.  On top of that, we wouldn’t have killed nearly a million Iraqis, thousands of our own troops, spread our military dangerously thin, or spent billions of dollars our country cannot afford.

But it all comes back to that one question:  “Why believe the people who got us into this mess?”.

Advertisements

3 Responses

  1. I love Ron Paul’s candor.

  2. I guess Ron Paul won’t be receiving an invitation for Thanksgiving with the Bush klan at the Kennebunkport compound this year.

  3. If the “war” as they call it were about weapons of mass destruction or Saddams threat to U.S. (us) then we have eliminated the “supposed” threats and now we are attempting to do in Iraq what we haven’t accomplished in the U.S. What a waste of time, money, life, and logic. Thing is, it’s just like the Bin Laden fallacy, if we never find Osama then we can continue to look for him. If we never settle the Iraqi’s tensions then we can justify being there forever. Just as in the medical field where doctors aren’t profiting if we are healthy therefore they take the hypocritical oath as opposed to the hippocratic oath. Doctors don’t want people with arthritis to know that honey bee stings will alleviate symptoms just like the government doesn’t want U.S. (us) to know that pulling out of the Arabian peninsula will alleviate Moslem tensions with U.S. (us). The business of “war”, declared or not, is just too profitable to the Bushit family and all their connections and the military industrial complex.

    It’s an old one but it’s accurate: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: