Fox Republican Debate: Why I Disagree With Ron Paul’s Assessment of Iran

A few nights ago on the Fox Republican Debate (Iowa, Dec. 15th), there was a heated exchange between Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann regarding a nuclear Iran. During that exchange, we heard Ron Paul validate his “hands off” Iran policy by citing a nuclear Russia, and an almost nuclear Cuba:

“If she [Bachmann] thinks we live in a dangerous world now, she ought to think back to when I was drafted in 1962 with nuclear missiles in Cuba. Kennedy called Kruschev and talked him out of having a nuclear exchange. And you’re trying to dramatize this like we’ve got to go and treat Iran like we’ve treated Iraq. We cannot solve these problems with war. We can solve our problems if we follow our Constitution and only go in if we have declared war – and then win the war and get it over with instead of this endless fighting and attitude that we have enemies all around the world.”

I disagree with Ron Paul’s assessment of Iran for three main reasons:

1) Iran isn’t Cuba in that it doesn’t have a check and balance like Cuba had with Russia. It wasn’t until 1992 that we found out how close we came to nuclear disaster, either by a Russian sub captain, or by Castro himself. Diplomacy may have been what ended the crisis, but history shows it certainly wasn’t what prevented a nuclear missile from being fired in the meantime. Castro himself said he would have recommended launching the nukes “if the US invaded despite knowing Cuba would be destroyed.”

2) I believe Paul is incorrect in thinking that “following the Constitution” trumps irrationality with fascist dictators. I admire Ron Paul for his conviction regarding Constitutional matters, however it seems like this is his “highest authority” whereas Iran’s highest authority is a religion that still involves the practice of killing “infidels”. In Ahkkie’s world, religious law trumps common law and that’s a huge difference between any of the other super

3) If Lawrence Wright’s “My Trip to Al Qaeda” is accurate, Paul must consider the fact that we in the western world seek “glory” through how we live, where as many in the Islamic world seek glory through how they die, or cause others to. For reference, see how much Iran is in support of “Honor Killings” and suicide bombers.

That all said, I don’t disagree with Paul’s assertion that Diplomacy is an option, I just don’t think it’s the best option. Sure, there is a reason why we haven’t had all-out Nuclear War between nations in our lifetime, and why nutbars like Kim Jong Il have been kept in check, but then again diplomacy didn’t work with Hitler and I think “Little Ahkie” is about as close to the second coming as we’ve seen.

Paul also seems to hold the U.S. Constitution in the highest regard, whereas nutbars like Ahmadinejad believe they are accountable to a much “higher authority” – one that glorifies martyrdom and wishes for the extermination of Jews. Is this the kind of guy I want with a nuke in his hands? Certainly not.

Further into the debate, Paul states that he worries about our “overreaction” to Iran. Considering the points above as well as the fact that Michelle Bachmann serves on the Armed Services Committee and therefore is privy to higher-level security information, I believe she’s right when she says that diplomacy may in fact be the biggest under-reaction to a threat in our history.

What is America’s “Blame” For Suicide Bombers?

The answer is none. None, nada, zero.

Oddly enough, I believe George Bush said it best here: “It is only when you do not have hope in a society that you join a suicide bomber team.”

I can hear the far left now: “Oh sure, Bush! Bombing the shit out of Iraq and Afghanistan and murdering thousands of civilians, we’re sure providing a lot of hope!”

I have two problems with the far left on this issue:
1) They sympathize with terrorists. They apply compassion to a group of people who have sworn an oath not to have any ounce of compassion for them in return. Apart from this simply being stupid, while this may seem “noble” to the far left, to me it is ridiculous when for one this compassion is sorely misplaced, and for another it shows their ignorance in the fact that they’re actually the pawns of the terrorists they pretend to care about.

2) The second problem I have is their blaming of America for suicide bombers. Their logic seems to be “We bomb, so they bomb”, or “We terrorize, so they terrorize.”

Bullshit. First of all, I’ve met none on the far left who actually flat out have the guts to say that we’re actually to blame for 9/11, the London Bombings, or any other terrorist act (except for perhaps Glenn Greenwald) even when they flat-out believe it. “Ya, but look at what we did in Iraq/Afghanistan/Nicaragua/etc.” is about as close as I’ll usually hear. Either way, they’re defending these “retributions” by saying that on some level, we deserved them. After all, if we’d stop waterboarding them, detaining them, and denying them their basic human rights they’d want to bomb us less, wouldn’t they?

Nope. I go back to Bush’s statement. America did not give these people a lack of hope which led them to become terrorists. That lack of hope came first from their parents. It then came from their spiritual leaders. After that it came from their political leaders and finally it came from their choice of peer group.

If America was so much to blame for “creating” suicide bombers then by the same logic we’d have a number of Londonites who would have been suicide bombers in World War II, wouldn’t we? After all, the Germans were bombing the shit out of them, right? Go one step further: how about the Jews? Tell me how many Jews, who experienced far worse atrocities to them, in greater numbers, and over a far greater length of time decided to strap a bunch of bombs to themselves back then and blow up a nightclub, or hit a German subway tunnel today? It’s an easy answer: zero. The far left’s logic (and b.s. sympathy) fails.

The fact is the left is f–ked up on this issue because both their sympathy and their blame are completely misplaced. I speak to why it’s misplaced in another post, but in the meantime if the far left wants to have sympathy for the terrorists then I suggest they don’t whine and cry for them after they’ve taken American lives or their own. Instead, they should apply their sympathy and support here for these kids before they’ve had a chance to harm anyone, most of all themselves.

That’s what I have to say about “sympathy”. As for “blame”, blame the parents who consider this, as another example, to be a suitable alternative to Sesame Street.

Blame the religious leaders that rob their people of any kind of true spirit or compassion on this earth and take the innocence and compassion away from children at their earliest opportunity. Blame the Afghan degenerates who, while supposedly “defending their homeland” as the left tries to put it, take a pause out of their “war” to throw acid in teenage girls’ faces.

We rarely, if ever, see the far left blogging about these things, do we? If I saw them blog about these sorts of things even 1/10th as much as they blog about how “evil” Bush is or America is, I might actually believe them when they say they support the troops, but since they don’t, I don’t.

Their perspective is of course their choice, but when it comes to the question of “do we give people hope?” in these terrorist breeding grounds, my answer is opposite to theirs. It is a flat-out, unequivocal “YES!”

America is living proof that government can be by the people and for the people. We have also demonstrated continuously, in spite of our failings, that we are always willing to lend a helping hand to those in need not because we have to, but because we simply want to – even when it’s not for people of our own race, country, or even religion.

Finally, we’ve also shown people of the world that if they, too, believe in freedom then we will try our best in some way to help them – whether that’s as “small” as fostering a culture of innovation in our country that creates things like the Internet or Twitter, or as “big” as having a military and intelligence apparatus strong enough to take out the #1 terrorist, or arm citizens wanting freedom against their oppressors.

We’ve done more to instill and nurture hope in people and countries around the world than any other country has. We’ve done it since our very beginning, and we’ll continue to until the very end. That’s who we are. Even the complaining on the far left is very evidence of the hope that we either do provide or can provide.

We have to, however, remind the people we’re trying to help that we’re still human though. We don’t always get it right. We sometimes don’t do enough, and we sometimes go too far, but in the end we still try.

The far left may argue that our country robs hope from others. I say it’s in fact the opposite – that we provide more hope than anyone else does. I will also go as far as to say that those who disagree – that believe we rob hope rather than provide it – have no purpose being here. They deserve a place where they think their life can mean something and that they can change things, and if they don’t think it’s here, they should find another country to be disgusted by America from.

And finally, as for the Bush hatred the far left has, I’ll ask them which they hate more – Bush going into Afghanistan, or this, or this, or this.

Then I’ll say, “Prove it.”

True Hero #5 – Bilal Ali Muhammad Saved Lives

NY Times: Sunni Cop Gives Life to Save Shiites

The FrumForum pointed me to my latest hero story. The New York Times reported today about an Iraqi police officer named Bilal Ali Muhammad who threw himself on a suicide bomber to save a number of innocent lives.

From the article:

‘He gave his soul to the country,’ said his mother, Alaahin Hassan, holding two of his daughters in her lap as dozens of black-veiled women filled her living room this week with ritualized wails of grief. ‘He believed in God. That made him great.’

David Frum on The Unintended Lesson of WikiLeaks – But Will It Be Learned?

In a Dec 4, 2010 blog post, David Frum suggests that

The organizers of Wikileaks say they wanted to blow the whistle on government fictions and expose the ugly realities. In a way they probably never intended, they have done just that. They have revealed that Iran is even more dangerous, Turkey even more hostile, Pakistan even more precarious and the Palestinians even more irrelevant than generally understood.

He’s probably right, but so what? I just can’t see anything happening – we’re too apathetic as a nation, and our attention span is way too short.

Uggh – I sound like a crotchety old man (thinking “Walter” from Jeff Durham’s act). I may have to change the title of my blog from The Rantings of VRK to The Cynical Rantings of VRK.

Enough negativity! A new challenge for me: I’m going to make five positive posts in a row. Real happy stuff! Stay tuned! (That echoed…)

Afghanistan – Sometimes I Just Don’t Get The Logic

From the Washington Post:

In another recent operation in the Zhari district, U.S. soldiers fired more than a dozen mine-clearing line charges in a day. Each one creates a clear path that is 100 yards long and wide enough for a truck. Anything that is in the way – trees, crops, huts – is demolished.

“Why do you have to blow up so many of our fields and homes?” a farmer from the Arghandab district asked a top NATO general at a recent community meeting.

Although military officials are apologetic in public, they maintain privately that the tactic has a benefit beyond the elimination of insurgent bombs. By making people travel to the district governor’s office to submit a claim for damaged property, “in effect, you’re connecting the government to the people,” the senior officer said.

A way to connect the government to the people is to make them travel to the district governor’s office and submit a claim? Where’s the sense in that? “Ya, sorry for blowing up your livelihood and worldly possessions, but now that you’re here, have some tea…”?

Ground Zero Mosque – How About This For A Solution? – UPDATED

I’ve been following the story of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque, and although I had my initial reactions I have held off on a “formal” opinion until I had a chance to learn more and hear more sides of the issue.

After much reading and discussion, here’s what I see as the issues:

1) We need to honor and respect the victims and families of 9/11, and its heroes.

2) We need to respect the right to religious freedom granted by the Constitution.

3) Some see this as a “slap in the face” to the victims, and a monument to the perpetrators of 9/11. Considering that the head Imam pushing for the Mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is not without his anti-American controversy (he had said on 60 Minutes that American policies were an accessory to the crime of 9/11), I believe their talking points are legitimate.

4) Certain Jewish and Muslim groups – groups who would otherwise be considered adversaries (or even enemies) – view this as an opportunity to help reconcile their differences and move together towards peace. They see it as an opportunity for the Islamic faith to be better understood by Americans, and of course is supported by the many Americans who are Muslim. I believe their points are legitimate as well.

So how do we address all these issues at once? I believe building neither a 9/11 Monument nor a Mosque can do so on its own. My suggestion, therefore, is this: why not build a Mosque and a Temple/Synagogue/Church/Memorial together?

Sound crazy? We’ve seen similar before. If the people in support of this are so about peace, then why not build a place of worship where all religions can come together and do so peacefully? How profound of a statement of peace would it make that we find Jews and Muslims praying together under the same roof? How profound of a statement would it be to see Muslims, Christians, and Jews honoring the memory of the 9/11 victims and heroes at the very place where the divisiveness between these religions was so horribly symbolized? What statement of religious freedom and American Exceptionalism would this show the world? If we see two seemingly opposite groups praying together in Syria, why can we not do it here, and do it even better?

If the supporters of the Ground Zero Mosque say they are all about remembering the 9/11 victims, religious freedom, tolerance, and peace not just here but throughout the world I say prove it. Build a multi-faith memorial where members of all faiths can pray together and mourn together, and you will have set many things in motion towards everything you say you stand for. If any of these groups oppose, however, then their true colors will be shown.

Your thoughts?

**** UPDATE 1 ****
Just heard that Gregg Guttfield of Fox’s “Red Eye” program is proposing a Muslim Gay Bar near the 9/11 site. Rumor has it the name of it would be “You Mecca Me Hot”. Brilliant!

**** UPDATE 2 ****
David Frum thinks the whole thing is a publicity stunt. Read here…

When Talking About What Fuels Anti-American Hatred, Greenwald Leaves a Few Things Out

Once again Mr. Greenwald does the “Blame America” thing again for an accused terrorist, in this case Shahzad and the Times Square bombing attempt. He makes the case that we typically ignore the actual reasons why terrorists do what they do. I say it is he who is ignoring the reasons, namely their own freedom of thought and actions.

From Mr. Greenwald’s blog @ Salon:

“The issue here is causation, not justification. The great contradiction of American foreign policy is that the very actions endlessly rationalized as necessary for combating Terrorism — invading, occupying and bombing other countries, limitless interference in the Muslim world, unconditional support for Israeli aggression, vast civil liberties abridgments such as torture, renditions, due-process-free imprisonments — are the very actions that fuel the anti-American hatred which, as the U.S. Government itself has long recognized, is what causes, fuels and exacerbates the Terrorism we’re ostensibly attempting to address.

It’s really quite simple: if we continue to bring violence to that part of the world, then that part of the world — and those who sympathize with it — will continue to want to bring violence to the U.S..”

Greenwald states that Shahzad was a “law abiding, middle class” citizen before he “transformed” into a terrorist. He then blames us for that transformation. Cause – we bomb. Effect – Shahzad transforms into a terrorist.

For such an intelligent writer, this position surprises me. His rationale suggests that if I watch Rambo enough times, I’m going to go out and kill people, or that if I’m bitter enough over 9/11, I’m going to strap a bomb to myself and run into a Mosque. Forget justification, Greenwald writes, this is simply just a matter of cause and effect – i.e. don’t blame me, blame Rambo.

Really? Well I’ve seen Rambo and dozens of violent movies and I’ll always remain upset over 9/11, but I’ve still not had the slightest inclination to go out and do anyone any harm as a result (just the opposite, actually – these types of events inspire me to do more good in the world).

We are not creatures of causation. “They bomb” doesn’t mean automatically that “we bomb”, or “I bomb” in return, yet Greenwald chooses to attack American foreign policy as a cause rather than these terrorists’ sense of choice that comes between cause and effect in the case of all human beings.

In fact, there are many choices that come between the “cause” and “effect” Greenwald discusses. Adopting a religion is a choice, selecting a worldview and frame of reference is a choice, and our actions based on that reference is a choice as well. Even the degree to which we allow outside influences to determine our actions is a choice, but for some reason these basic elements of human thought are not present in Greenwald’s “simple” view.

Let’s look at it another way. Shahzad had no family or friends who were bombed by predator drones. He had ZERO connection to drone attacks until he chose VOLUNTARILY to associate himself with them. And how did he associate with them? By choosing a specific (but not exclusive) religion, cause, and course of action from his original homeland that would justify his revenge. This whole process is not “natural” – it takes both thought and choice; both of which Greenwald doesn’t seem to give Shahzad or any terrorist credit for in his article.

Instead, he chooses to say that an event (ex: a Predator drone attack) is the “cause”. An event is not a “cause” – it is our interpretation of that event and our emotional attachment to it that we then choose to make our cause. As Shakespeare said, nothing is either good nor bad, but thinking makes it so. Shazdad interpreted events for himself, and he alone attached emotional significance to them. America did not do either of these things for him, and yet Greenwald feels we are the ones who are almost entirely to blame.

I disagree. America can no more be blamed for one’s choice of “revenge” for acts in the Middle East as it can be credited for another’s choice of pacifism in the same situation. Therefore, the responsibility for Shahzad’s actions must fall upon himself.

If Shahzad would choose to see that we Westerners are more than just our choice of religion, he’d perhaps make different choices. If he would choose to see not only what we’ve done wrong in the world, but also what we’ve done right, he’d perhaps make different choices. Ultimately, though, these terrorists and Greenwald need to see that we are not the ones who remove their choice and free will from them – it is in fact their own religion and ideology that they choose that does that for them. Otherwise, who are these terrorists actually serving?

Also, if Greenwald is so certain these terrorist acts are a simple matter of choice-less retaliation, then how could he support a guilty verdict for any one of these terrorists at all?

I have a lot of respect for Greenwald as a skilled and intelligent writer, but I don’t get his respect for these terrorists as free-thinking human beings when at the same time he acts like they had no choice as a result of our foreign policy and in turn, lays all the blame at our feet. Am I missing something?

Two Dead Journalists – Evidence of Brutality? Not to me.

There’s a lot of controversy surrounding a WikiLeaks video showing a US Apache firing upon a group of 8-15 men, and then an unmarked black van. Amongst the victims, two reporters died and two children were seriously injured.

I watched the video. I didn’t enjoy it, however I must say that I did not see the malicious intent or brutality so many are trying to portray the military as having in that situation.

First of all, the video quality was poor. In motion, I could not distinguish a camera from a slung rifle in the film. Second, I can appreciate the setting. There’s a convoy of Bradleys coming through, and you’re in one of two helicopters. You see a crowd of what you believe to be insurgents carrying rifles and RPG’s. I’m assuming since watching Blackhawk Down that an RPG can still take out the tail rotor of a helicopter. It was clear in that video that soldiers saw a threat – not an innocent group of Iraqis.

The soldiers’ voices escalate from curiosity to fear only AFTER they recognize weapons in the crowd. They don’t fire at will, they ask for permission to fire and hold off until they have it. All the while, these guys are starting to duck behind walls and corners before a single shot is fired, appearing to be that they were getting into position (for what?) I didn’t see anyone waving a “Press” flag, and you could also hear over the radio that they had none of their guys in the area.

I suppose some will say they should have waited until the group either fired at them or other friendly forces first – that RPG’s and assault rifles weren’t enough. For me, it’s simple – if I’m holding an AK-47 and an Apache helicopter is staring me down, I’m going to either a) put the weapon down, and/or b) make sure that Apache knows I’m a friendly.

What they did, to me, was a preemptive strike to neutralize people they believed to have AK-47′s and RPG’s. After the shooting there was a wounded Iraqi crawling on the ground. They didn’t “finish him off” with a final bullet, they make sure he doesn’t still have a weapon and covered him. If they were so hungry for blood, no one would have been left moving at that point.

Then the van enters the scene. You have no idea who’s in that van, or what their intentions are. They can surely see the helicopters, yet do they wave a white flag or anything? No. And why have your children a) in the front seat, or b) there in that situation in the first place? Again, in the motion of the video and with a lack of still zoom, there was no way to make out that there were children in that van. More said “potential enemy” about that van than ever said “potential friendly.”

After all the shooting, I also saw two soldiers racing to get the children help. Ya, that’s the act of brutal warmongers (NOT). The video makes mention that command “refused” to send them to a military hospital and instead to a local one, insinuating that they didn’t care for the children at all. The soldiers’ actions on the ground proved to the contrary.

This whole event was a tragedy, and was a clear reminder of the horrors of war. It ended badly for both sides, and especially more for the reporters and children, but to blame? No, what happened to those children and reporters in that tragedy was horrible, but I’m left with the sense that the only people who erred on the side of caution in this situation were the US forces.

At home, a parent gets charged with child neglect for leaving them too long in a parked car. These Iraqis are bringing children into gunfights. I just don’t get it. If any wrongdoing was found to have occurred in at incident on behalf of the Apache crew, so be it. In the meantime, my support continues for the allied Forces and the work they are doing over there to make a difference.

The Way to Win The War on Terrorism is Through Intelligence, Not Morals

People on the far left seem to think that we’re somehow, someday, going to win over the hearts and minds of radical jihadists everywhere and that once they see what great, kind, and wonderful people we are, they’ll simply stop trying to blow us up. After all, we’ve elected a non-white President with a Muslim background, we’ve stopped “torture”, we’ve apologized for our wicked ways, and now we’re even giving non-citizens citizen protections under civil law. Is that enough, or do we owe them more?

On the other side, people on the far right want to wipe these radicals off the map by any means possible. “All’s fair in love and war” would appear to be their mantra.

On all sides, I believe the focus is misplaced. The focus should not be on religion or morals in this war. It should be about quality of intelligence, plain and simple, because that’s what’s going to decide who wins. The more intelligence the enemy has about our security or interrogation techniques, the more they will be able to circumvent and adapt. Conversely, the more intelligence we have about them – where they are, what they’re doing, what they’re planning to do, the more we will be in a position to defeat them.

If torture consistently delays or produces faulty intelligence then I’m against it, whether that’s with someone waterboarding or forcing a subject to watch Joy Behar’s show in order to get it. I want the best intelligence we can get, and the best intelligence isn’t necessarily what is acquired in the most humane way – it isn’t even at times what is the most accurate. The best intelligence is what is the most timely. Even the most accurate intel on 9/11 becomes useless on 9/12.

Intelligence has a shelf life, and is perishable. That is why I am against handling terrorists through a civilian process because its mechanisms have inherently and traditionally blocked our ability to gather intelligence in a timely manner (unnecessarily, I might add, as it has still yet to be proven why these terrorists are entitled to civilian trials in the first place). Therefore, I agree completely with Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation in his response to Eric Holder’s newest defense of civilian trials. (Note: trying to link to a copy of the actual letter, but link is down so using this one as a backup.)

We’ve done more than enough to prove our morality to the world. It’s time to be intelligent again.

How Are The PC Cops Going to Get Past This One?

Not sure how valid this story is, but I find it semi-humorous and semi-troubling all at once: apparently breast and buttock implants can be used to smuggle explosives onto a plane completely undetected by current technology, and then detonated.

Are the pat-downs now going to include a squeeze, too?