Ron Paul vs. The Neo-Cons

If it’s a Republican presidential debate involving Ron Paul, then you’re guaranteed to get some fierce exchanges on foreign policy.  Last night in Ames, IA was no different.

While I wouldn’t typically recommend the JBS for news, this article of theirs quotes the important exchanges between Paul, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann.

According to Santorum, we need an aggressive stance against Iran because they have “killed more American men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan than the Iraqis and the Afghans have.  The Iranians are the existential threat to the state of Israel.”  Also, because Iran “tramples the rights of gays,” an odd statement considering that he spent time during the debate advocating the trampling of gay people’s marriage rights (equating extending marriage rights to imposed sterilization).

Per Bachmann, who claims to have seen classified documents: “I will do everything to make sure that Iran does not become a nuclear power.”

Ron Paul provided the lone voice of reason:  “You’ve heard the war propaganda that is liable to lead us into the sixth war and I worry about that position. Iran is a threat because they have some militants there, but believe me, they’re all around the world and they’re not a whole lot different than others.”

Paul, in addressing Bachmann’s access to “confidential” information: “They’re building up this case just like we did with Iraq. Build up the war propaganda. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq.”

Nor were there any weapons of mass destruction, despite the top-secret “intelligence” that stated otherwise.

According to Paul, why would we attack Iran when we did not engage the Soviet Union and their 30,000 nuclear weapons.  “We didn’t attack them. And they were a much greater danger. They were the greatest danger to us in our whole history. But you don’t go to war with them.”  Whereas Iran “does not have an air force that can come here. They can’t even make enough gasoline for themselves.”

Unfortunately, Republican “patriotism” continues to mean pounding the war drums, sending soldiers into foreign lands, bring death and destruction to others, bloodshed and bankruptcy to ourselves.

Paul, often accused of isolationism, has a viewpoint that makes a hell of a lot more damn sense than the neo-conservative orthodoxy that has taken over the Republican party:  “I say a policy of peace is free trade, stay out of their internal business, don’t get involved in these wars and just bring our troops home.”

I’ve documented in my previous blog certain problems I have with Ron Paul, but I commend him for fighting the good fight against the war agitators in his own party.