Here is what I posted:
Paul,
I appreciated your piece being critical of Dr. Paul. I do have some disagreements and questions for you however, obviously this is a complicated subject that can't be resolved in a few paragraphs so diving in deeper seems appropriate.
On the spectrum of foreign policy perspectives in America, non-interventionism today is somewhat on the fringe.
On what basis do you make this claim? Further, even if something is fringe, does that make it inherently a faulty position?
How would Paul, an avowed non-interventionist, have acted in reaction to the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor in 1941?
Presumably Dr. Paul wouldn't have provoked the Japanese as President Hoover said had been done the day after Pearl Harbor "You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten."
Would Paul have blamed those attacks on our annoyance of the Japanese in the same way that he blamed the 9/11 attacks on the foreign policy of recent U.S. administrations?
I suggest considering to what degree these "pins in rattlesnakes" were documented with the McCollum Memo (written October 1940), declassified in 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo
What is your analysis of this memo? Did they put "pins in rattlesnakes"? Is this not non-interventionism?
After implying that we invited the attacks on our civilians,
What leads you to this conclusion since he never said "invited"? Please explain the how this is implied.
That’s the thing about non-interventionists and pacifists – they too often cling to the belief that everyone else would stick to these non-interventionist views if they themselves stick to them long enough.
It would seem statistically that some others would stick to their own non-intervention while others wouldn't. The question is, what to do about it? Do we always go on the offensive? I would suggest to consider some words of Dwight Eisenhower, you may recall that Dr. Paul pointed out that Eisenhower was elected to get us our of the Korean war, below is part of a speech he made just prior to the general election on the topic:
The biggest fact about the Korean war is this: It was never inevitable, it was never inescapable, no fantastic fiat of history decreed that little South Korea-in the summer of 1950-would fatally tempt Communist aggressors as their easiest victim. No demonic destiny decreed that America had to be bled this way in order to keep South Korea free and to keep freedom itself-self-respecting.
We are not mute prisoners of history. That is a doctrine for totalitarians, it is no creed for free men.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
October 25, 1952
"I Shall Go to Korea" speech
http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Documents/1950s/Ike_Korea_52.html
So in effect, a free man can choose if he wants to intervene or not, it is totalitarians to conclude there is no option or just be forced to follow the government mandate- would you disagree with this?
That’s the thing about non-interventionists and pacifists – they too often cling to the belief that everyone else would stick to these non-interventionist views if they themselves stick to them long enough. But that is not how it works. That is never how the world has worked. And it is certainly not how the ideology of extremist Muslims works.
Can you provide a proof of this "ideology" or is this a hypothesis based on a handful of data points? I understand there are data points, I'm just saying that after a decent study on the matter I have yet to see the hardcore proof that this claimed threat is worth addressing in the manner it is. I'm interested if you can provide one.
The fact of the matter is that the radical Muslims running Al Qaeda and like terrorist organizations have as a goal the conversion of the entire world populace to their way of life.
I would like to see a proof of this as well. Assuming this is true, if using a completely pacifists foreign policy of doing nothing and only dealing with the issue at our borders or on American soil, how long do you think it will take for them to be successful to the point that our way of life is in jeopardy?
Letting terrorists quietly establish bases in the Middle East so they can use them to convert the world would indeed represent the end of history as we know it.
Of course everything changes the world as we know it, the question is to what degree, how does it effect me and what should, if anything, be done about it? Your argument here is to take action, for me, taking action means getting involved. Do you suggest that I put my life on hold and travel to the Middle East to deal with this threat? If it's not worth me going there why would I want to support someone else going there? What sacrifices are worth making to you?
Thanks for clarifying you position.
