Friday, December 16, 2011

Ron Paul and his anti-war stand!

 "If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints."

I guess it must be something akin to our second nature that, as a species, we love to participate in war. Throughout the centuries, waging war has been just about the only concrete way to impose one system of beliefs by one country onto another country. In modern times, it’s been a ‘give them a taste of diplomacy, but be sure to carry a sword hidden behind your back’ kind of diplomacy. That same strategy seems to have held true for America for some time now, only we’ve dropped the facade of just talking and have substituted the harsh reality of sanctions. Iran is a perfect example of how not to handle, or should I say, mishandle a state. Ron Paul, during the Iowa debate of December the 15th had it exactly right. As a nation, we are in love with the concept of taking care of the world, even when the world doesn’t want or need it. We are addicted to spending trillions of dollars (money we no longer have) on prosecuting an endless series of wars that have only succeeded in alienating even our allies. And, as we head into 2012, the world will surely take notice. We're just not what we used to be. To our enemies, we may well look dented and old; squirting oil and smoke out of our seams as we try to maintain an image of robust health. Once again, I agree with Ron. What part of broke does everyone not get?

During the debate, Michelle Bachmann stated, that "we have an IAEA report that just recently came out that said, literally, Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that weapon." This statement is categorically false! While Iran may have the ability to produce a nuke or two at some point in the future, the fact is the IAEA doesn’t know anything for sure. Why Michelle would utter such falsehoods not once but twice was hurtful and petty and a good reason why she is not presidential material.

The point is that on just about every occasion I can recall, Ron Paul has been absolutely correct and I admire the manner in which her calls them as he sees them. He has the kind of strong moral fiber that this country is currently lacking in the White House. His desire to pull back in our military is correct as it his desire to work with other countries without trying to change them. As a case in point, yes Iran is certainly to be watched. Yes, they may develop a nuke. But, if they were to try and use one or if they were to block the Strait of Hormuz, this country has numerous options in which we could handle the situation. Finally, if Iran were to get too far out of line, then perhaps as Ron suggests, we could convene Congress for a formal declaration of war. Do it right and do it by the numbers! But, whatever happens, we need to stop with the pointless sanctions that only kill babies and start acting and looking like the super power we claim to be.

I’m not sure if Ron Paul has a chance to win the GOP’s nod or not. I keep getting the feeling that this is like the 1992 presidential race when we could have elected Ross Perot to lead this nation. Now, while I’m not sure how good a president he would have been, I can practically guarantee we would not be in the fiscal mess we find ourselves today. The same is true today. Ron Paul may be old and infirm, but beneath that frail exterior beats the heart of an individual who could lead America back to greatness if just given the chance. Can you say the same about the other candidates? I’m not sure.

No comments:

Post a Comment