At nutty as Ron Paul is on foreign policy, he typically tries to be consistent. But in this exchange with Newt Gingrich and Bret Baier at last night’s debate, Paul can’t even manage that. It’s impossible to understand what Paul’s position on this is – on one hand, he says he supported efforts to take out Osama bin Laden, but then says he disagrees with the actual mission that killed bin Laden because it was a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. How exactly were we supposed to kill bin Laden without entering Pakistan, seeing as he was living there? This is the problem with the Paul brand of foreign policy theory. It all comes crashing down when it meets reality. (Video via HotAir):
Gingrich does a phenomenal job challenging Paul on this, and in the process gives us one of the best historical references of the night: “South Carolina in the Revolutionary War had a young 13-year-old named Andrew Jackson. He was sabered by a British officer and wore a scar his whole life. Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear-cut idea about America’s enemies: Kill them.”
I insist that Paul is a serious liability for the GOP. It doesn't matter that he will not win the nomination. Having a 'NUT' on the stage undermines the entire GOP thrust against Obama. This is particularly true for Jewish voters, to their credit. Obama couldn't have wished for a better ally – actually a fifth columnist in the GOP ranks.
Ron Paul makes sense.He would stop foreign aid. Israel's enemies get 4 to 5 times more aid than Israel.Plus, we sell them weapons.Our foreign aid has strings attached which has forced Israel to give their land (some very strategic) fora promised peace. But, instead, Israel's enemies shoot missiles at remaining Israeli lands which kill many innocent people. n nWake up and support Ron Paul!
What Ron Paul advocated was to follow International law not attack anyone you like in another country. if every country follows your way, it would chaos!!! Yes, you hate OBL, just as many other countries hate their enemies and traitors. Do they come over to America and kill them? n nWhat is happening is America has been brained washed to the extent of not knowing right or wrong. n nAnyway, this issue is minor compared to others like saving America by saving Military spending and strenghtening defence spending. The latter brings the dollars home and create jobs in domestic markets. the former create jobs overseas. n n
Following international law is just a catchphrase employed by Rep. Paul when it serves his isolationist purposes. Your example about other countries coming over to the U.S. to kill their enemies is flawed: the U.S. does not harbor international terrorists like Pakistan harbored Bin Laden. If another country has someone they want, the U.S. is amenable to extradition and legal process. Pakistan is a badly broken country that allows a significant part of its supposedly sovereign territory to be used by Islamist Militants who are engaged in global war against Western ideals. The Bin Laden raid reflected the sad reality that the Pakistani govt could not be trusted to hand over Bind Laden or even to know about the raid in advance. Pakistan is more of an adversary than ally. The U.S. cannot say that out loud due to logistical needs. n nAs for this false dichotomy between "military spending" and "defense spending," it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. To take just one example, the bases we have in Kuwait would be considered by Ron Paul to be "military spending." But where is the savings of closing those bases and relocating everything to the U.S.? It is a lose-lose proposition. Building a replacement base in the U.S. would be enormously expensive and would deny the U.S. priceless pre-positioning of men and equipment in one of the most vital areas of the world for the U.S. economy. Closing the bases is penny wise, pound foolish. Just like Ron Paul.
And Paul does not apply "international law" to folks who come over and bomb bomb bomb US! bin Laden's 9/11 has been publicy explained, rationalized, and excused as the undestandable acts of someone who was "annoyed"–not as illegal acts of war they clearly were (blowing up the WTC really is a no no under international law)–before he splits the difference and calls for some kind of impossible American "arrest". Under international law bin Laden was an unlawful combatant, under American Constitutional law he had no guarantees to be handled per the domestic criminal justice system. You don't go out onto the battlefield and arrest combatants. And by the way, for *legal combatants*, placing POWS under arrest for acts committed under international norms of warfare would be a violation of their rights as prisoners of war. n nAlso, Paul's known position is that the bombardment of Ft. Sumter should have been met with acquiescence and ditto for Pearl Harbor. Given his certain opposition to the tyranny of a draft it's hard to know what President Ron Paul would budget for his immobilized domiestic armies other than white flags.