I agree with Ron Paul on almost every issue within US borders. Seriously, I think he is one of America’s modern Domestic Policy geniuses. I agree with him on almost everything in Economy, Civil Liberties, State Powers, Environment, Health Policy, and Election Law. This is, with me, to the point where my only Domestic Policy dissent to him is:
- I don’t agree with decreasing Department of Defense funding
- Instead of supporting Bush Tax cuts and/or National Sales Tax I support a Flat tax where everyone annually making more than $90,000 gets taxed 25% and everyone annually making less than that gets funded 25%, and all making exactly that get neither taxed nor funded.
- I believe the oldest one can be to opt out of Social Security should be 35 rather than 25
- I personally don’t want government involved in the abortion issue for either side of the abortion debate, therefore I differ from Mr. Paul by being personally Pro-choice on this issue, but I will make a post here later about where animal life starts, and there will be little to no political language in that one
- I believe that the death penalty should be abolished and replaced with mandatory life in prison sentencing
- While I agree that big government and financial crisis are immediate threats to civilization, I will say to him out of dissent that science confirms that this planet overheating is a Long-term threat
And that is literally all of the domestic policy dissent I have toward Ron Paul. Now we can focus on the actual point of this post
I happen to differ very starkly from Ron Paul on foreign policy but I do not differ from him puritanically. So I figure I would commit this entire essay to illustrating what common ground I have with him and what dissident ground I have against him.
Do I agree with Mr. Paul on his general views?
Yes to his support for free trade, freedom of travel, freedom of association, and honest friendship with foreign nations. No to his opposition to US involvement in the issues of other nations, because my question to him is this: “Given that individuals who are very hardcore friends typically defend each other against all odds, how should nations who are very hardcore friends be any different?” Issues of foreign nations can and very often do include attacks against honest friends by obvious enemies.
Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Non-intervention?
With some limits I do: I agree with him in full on his opposition to Wars of Aggression and on his opposition to military alliances. I agree with him on bringing troops home from everywhere except Japan, Korea, and the GME. In other words, I agree with Ron Paul on bringing troops home from Western Europe, from Northern Europe, from the South American continent, and from the continent of Oceania. However I do still want us to honor the basic, historic definition of a friendship in regard to the Thomas Jeffersonian value of “Honest Friendships with foreign nations” by sticking up for them when thuggish nations violate the Non-Aggression Principle against them.
Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Afghanistan?
Hm… I share his support for the initial War in Afghanistan, and I agree that we should only have been targeting the actual Al-Qaeda. However, Paul does not address the proofs that the Taliban at the time were the second largest sponsor of Al-Qaeda to only Saudi Arabia:
- The Taliban regime was the State Sponsor of Al-Qaeda who was harboring them
- The Taliban regime was using Afghan taxpayer money to preserve and protect Al-Qaeda from 1996 to 2001.
- The Taliban regime shares a puritanical approach to the Koran – called Sunni Nationalism – with Al-Qaeda
While I agree with Ron Paul that we should not have conducted a long, open-ended occupation with the intent of redeeming Afghanistan, I worry he has not legit Grand Strategy to offer as an alternative to morally ideal war for morally ideal goal. Me on the other hand, if I was in my 20’s or even teens at the time and had the maturity and intellect I had now, then I would have advocated Scorched Earth warfare for Unconditional Surrender and published evidence for both what I am talking about and how its a good idea using William T Sherman’s Savannah Campaign as how to go about a campaign against the Taliban and their ‘pet militia’ at the time, Al-Qaeda.
Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Iraq?
Well… I do agree with his notion that in general the Iraq War was a total fail, however Mr. Paul and I differ on the issue of HOW and also WHY it was and is a total fail.
Firstly, our attack on the Saddam regime was in reply to him scheming to murder Israel’s one-third Atheist/Deist/Nonreligious minority at the time [1990’s and early 2000’s decade] over Israel’s self-defenses in the Arab-Israeli War that Israel propped up against Arab Nationalist regimes like the Palestinian Authority since the early 1960’s.
That means the War in Iraq was waged in Defense of an Honest Friend. Remember how I set my standard of true friends to include ready and willing defense of each other? Yeah, Israel is one of those “Honest friends” of America, as of 1947 when they became their own nation. Which brings us to how and why the Iraq war was and is a total fail.
The actual means by which the Iraq War was epic fail was the fact that we once more fought a Thomas Aquinas-minded “Just War theorist” fight for once again a Self-sacrificial goal of, wait for it… wait for it… Redeeming a broken regime. Our goal should have instead been Unconditional Surrender by Saddam, and our conduct should have instead been Sherman-style Savannah Campaigning.
Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Israel?
You mean that stuff he says about how America can be a better friend to Israel?
The only thing I don’t agree with him on is his opposition to letting Israel do what it had to in order to stop Gaza’s flotilla’s weapons from getting to Hamas. I also don’t agree with him saying Israel cannot defend itself from aggression any way it needs to.
But I will give Ron Paul praise for recognizing that we should not give free money to basically any of Israel’s neighbors, and I also share his belief that we should not dictate whether Israel is free to buy Non-American when it buys weapons and such.
Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Iran?
I share his opposition to sanctioning Iran for radically opposite reasons to those for which he opposes sanctioning Iran.
Iran, as of 1979, is a Shia Nationalism funding and highly genocidal bully, it wants to murder Israel and Israel’s 5.2 million Atheists and Deists, that makes my fellow Nonreligious out to be 65% of the Israeli population.
As I have mentioned before Israel was and is a sibling-like friend [avoided using ‘brotherly’ or ‘sisterly’ because nations cannot have genders] to America since it got started in 1947. Iran is bullying Israel with uniquely venomous genocide threats. In this case we should conduct a Savannah Campaign against the whole Iranian Plateau for the Iranian Revolution’s Unconditional Surrender.
Same applies to Syria’s State Sponsorship of Shia Nationalist acts of terror, and to the ISIS de-facto ‘nation’ and the ultimate Sunni Nationalism sponsor Saudi Arabia as well.
Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Sudan?
On one hand… The Sudan genocide does not directly endanger America or any of its Honest friends. On the other hand… the Sudan regime does pose massive danger to such True friends of America as Morocco, Algeria, Nigeria, Albania, and Israel by being the State Sponsor of Terror that Sudan is.
So I agree with him on not attacking Sudan over Darfur. However I do not agree with him on letting the current Sudan regime be as-is.
Rather I say we need to End Sudan for Sponsoring Sunni Nationalist terror. Now I can already hear individuals claiming that the Janjaweed militia is one of these groups. But they are a racial and ethnic Nationalist terror cell and not a religious Nationalist one, so yes they can be still counted as a Terror-militia that Sudan sponsors, even if they are just within the south-eastern Sahara nations. So actually our reason for ending the Sudan regime should be because they sponsor religious and racial Terror against their neighbors and thereby create dangers for Honest Friends of America.
Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Cuba?
To an extent, I do. I believe that the current Cuban president is not a State Sponsor of Terror like his brother and predecessor was, but I also believe Cuba is not any kind of friend of the US. Like I do support opening Free Trade and Freedom of travel for Americans to and from Cuba, but I want said policy to be adopted very cautiously, meaning I think we should be ready and willing to retaliate for any Cuban regime violations of any citizens of America or of any Honest Friends. Like something were we Speak to Cuba Peacefully, but Carry A Huge Mace.
Maybe this could include handing them a list of We The People’s Honest Friends [Saudi Arabia and Pakistan do not count as friends] so they know whose citizens to respect as foreign tourists. Base the list on which nations are most popular to Americans and which ones view America’s population mostly happily before making the discussion though.
Do I agree with Mr. Paul on International Organizations?
I share his opposition to every multilateral organization except for the OECD, which I don’t think he has addressed. Our NATO friends, for example, are all our Honest Friends [except for Turkey] and we therefore do not need military alliance with them. There is a big difference between alliance and friendship.
As for the OECD, that’s really the one that does not violate American Independence, and therefore its the one we can actively seek for our friends who are not already in it to join and that we can also actively stay in.
Do I agree with Mr. Paul on International Trade?
I fully agree with Ron Paul about free trade and I share is hostility to Protectionism. Like him I also believe that free trade should be based on a free-market module of setting prices freely by mutual agreement between, in this case, American and foreigner.
Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Borders and Immigration?
I agree with his support for Documented immigration. However, I believe Undocumented immigration should be handled entirely in an individualist manner, with basis on whether the Undocumented is ‘legal or illegal’ being based on whether they respect our Constitution while respecting the Non-Aggression Principle, or not. This means I believe Undocumented immigrants who consistently avoid malum in se crimes should be allowed to have citizenship. But I also think Undocumented immigrants who actively commit malum in se crimes should be deported.
As for borders, I believe there are ways of toughening our border security that do not violate Free Trade or Freedom of travel that need to be utilized, and if there are not then I’m happy to observe we live in a century where smart people and tough people can get together and invent such middle-ground methods as I am imploring.
Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Terrorism?
Let us see… I fully agree with Ron Paul on the idea of using the Letters of Marque and Reprisal permission from Article One Section Eight to post bounties on Terror militias. But I do not believe that the War On Terror was created to curtail civil liberties, this does not make me blind to government violations of the Constitution. I observe though that government is doing terrible things by curtailing our civil liberties, and that the War On Terror is not being conducted correctly.
Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Airport Security?
Yes, I do. Should I elaborate? Or should I talk of my airport travel experiences?
Do I agree with Mr. Paul on Investigation?
You mean about FBI needing to improve and/or change their investigation tactics? Yes, I do.
Do I agree with Mr. Paul on 9/11 Conspiracy theory?
I absolutely and proudly share Ron Paul’s strident rejection of the weirdo ultra-fantasies and pure-fictions that are the 9/11 conspiracy theories. It is only evidence-based common sense to reject these theories. And while I agree that the real issue was a fail in our federal government, I also know from my studies of history that there is more to it than that:
- The 9/11 hijackers were Islamic Nationalists, people who make a religious Nationalism out of the contents of the Koran
- The very first Islamic Nationalism was created as a Sunni brand of Islamic Nationalism in the Ninth Century called ‘Salafism‘, made by a guy named Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, who was born in 781 and died at age 74.
- The Islamic faith was already motivating a religious Nationalism among its 7th and 8th century followers before Hanbal was born, motivating the Saracen knights – as they were known to Europeans in Medieval times – to launch many wars of aggression to satisfy their religious Nationalism.
- Pakistan as an independent nation began its history with hatred of Hindus, Buddhists, and other Non-Islamic religious demographics, conducted a genocide against Non-Muslim demographics in 1971, and is now a state sponsor of terror. In just one year Pakistan proved it is willing to use its military to murder 3 million civilians of any nation for not being puritanically Muslim.
- Nowadays, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan are the top three sponsors on Earth of Islamic Nationalist acts of terror.
- Saudi Arabia has been sponsoring Saudi-regime-like militias such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda since the middle 1970’s.
Do I agree with Mr. Paul about the Operation to kill Osama Bin Laden?
Ron Paul says we did it wrong, which I think is absolutely not true. Pakistan was harboring the guy and was refusing to let us access him, plus the Pakistan regime boasted at one point in history about sponsoring and harboring terrorists like Bin Laden. So we were doing the right thing sending troops in without this Enemy Regime’s permission, and by ending Bin Laden we did right by the American people. The only thing we did wrong was dumping Bin Laden’s body into an ocean instead of burying him somewhere uninhabited like we did with Saddam, because now the 9/11 Truthers have something to cite for claiming that their fantasies are somehow realities. Pakistan has historically proven itself to not deserve a nation of its own, and no one can tell me I didn’t give evidence because I already linked to observational articles about Pakistan’s history and nature.
Do I agree with Mr. Paul about the Operation to kill Anwar al-Awkali?
I do share his belief that American citizens who are suspected of terror should be tried in US courts. So in this sense, yes, I agree that the US government handled Al-Awkali poorly.
So I do agree with some of Ron Paul’s foreign policy pointers, but I think I have more dissent on his views than agreement with his views. I just wanted to make some disclosure on any ideas of how similar or different I am from Mr. Paul. Thank you for reading this,