The Media's Outrageous Take on Ron Paul's Foreign Policy AKA Isolationism

rothyman's picture
Rank: King Kong | 1,270

After last night's GOP debate, it didn't take long for pundits to pounce on Ron Paul's foreign policy, among other things 'Crazy Uncole Ron' believes in.

Michelle Bachmann, who has practically been meaningless for the past few or so months, came out hard on Paul lastnight, grilling him on the whole question of Iran posessing nukes.

Among other asshats, Brett Baier continued to drill Paul on this very question as if he was going to get a different answer the 5th time he asked.

Shit finally hit the fan for me this morning taking the train into the city. After grabbing a copy of the Post, I get 5 pages in and I'm already reading a column about the debate. I grovel over the same bullshit that has been said about Romney/Gingrich for the past few months and get to the meat: What shit they are going to fling at Ron Paul this time. And it read like this:

"Along the way, Bachmann challenged Ron Paul's astonishingly generous view of Iran's interest in nuclear weapons -- "They're surrounded," he said almost sorrowfully -- and in so doing had the libertarian favorite go into an isolationist rant that surely harmed him in Iowa."

So let me get this straight.

After 10 years of pointless war and thousands of American deaths, the thought that we should avoid another war is ISOLATIONIST? The thought that we should avoid bombing another country who is absolutely no threat to us is CRAZY? And now Iowa pollers are going to shy away from Paul because of this?

Everytime I hear some fuckstick talk about how Ron Paul is an Isolationist, I cringe. You'd think that America would have learned from it's recent history that policing the world and nationbuilding has done nothing but demonize us in the eyes of many, while a few profit off the wars for their own benefit.

You'd think these asshats in the media would get down off their pedastal and for GOD SAKES take sides with Ron Paul on at least this ONE important topic.

Look, I'm no Ron Paul freak. I don't walk the streets at night with a Ron Paul sign throwing snowballs at Neocons. Hell, I don't even know if I'm going to vote for him. However what the media is doing to his ideas is blasphemy. I feel as if our own media is going to eventually push us into another war that our children are going to have to fight, once again. And for what?

It's time to once and for all call these pundits out on their weak minded shit flinging.

End Rant.

Comments (15)

Dec 16, 2011

Ron Paul: here are the reasons behind their behavior, and the rationale behind their perception of us. If you would like to change that, and take a step toward solving our domestic fiscal problems, then here's the solution.

The media and his opponents: he's a Middle East sympathizer!!!

Dec 16, 2011

What really bugs me the most, and this is sort of hard to put into writing, is that the people who work in the media that put these thoughts out there are real people. Like, how do real people write this sort of crap?

Also, maybe if the media did it's actual job, Iowa voters would be more informed and vote based on facts not horse race garbage.

Dec 16, 2011

I got pissed and turned off the TV, I just couldn't watch.

Dec 16, 2011

I yelled at Bachmann when she said if Iran gets a nuke they'd wipe Israel off teh map. The dumb bitch didn't realize Israel already has ~300 nukes!

Dec 16, 2011

The media's portrayal of Ron Paul has been so grossly biased it's almost laughable. It is so blatantly obvious - that means that they are desperate. Which someone might think is a good thing. However, the average American voter obviously does not spend time vetting candidates and gets their information from these horseshit news outlets.

On a side note, I fucking hate Brett Baier. At one of the debates a few months ago - Ron Paul made his case for foreign policy. After which Brett looks into the camera, gives a big smirk and rolls his eyes. Like a respected civil servant and physican's perspective could actually mean something. Just another Foxnews shill reporter.

These other GOP candidates are perfect for the average American. The average American with their 8th grade reading level and complete lack of objective and analytical thought. A full 31% of Americans aged 18-29 don't know who the current Vice-President is.

Ahh fuck it, this response was all over the place. I can't concentrate when I see "analysis" of last nights debate that says that Perry, Bachman, and Romney were the big winners.

Dec 16, 2011
RagnarDanneskjold:

Just another Foxnews shill reporter.

There aren't words stong enough to describe how much I dislike FOX news

Dec 16, 2011
RagnarDanneskjold:

The media's portrayal of Ron Paul has been so grossly biased it's almost laughable. It is so blatantly obvious - that means that they are desperate. Which someone might think is a good thing. However, the average American voter obviously does not spend time vetting candidates and gets their information from these horseshit news outlets.

On a side note, I fucking hate Brett Baier. At one of the debates a few months ago - Ron Paul made his case for foreign policy. After which Brett looks into the camera, gives a big smirk and rolls his eyes. Like a respected civil servant and physican's perspective could actually mean something. Just another Foxnews shill reporter.

These other GOP candidates are perfect for the average American. The average American with their 8th grade reading level and complete lack of objective and analytical thought. A full 31% of Americans aged 18-29 don't know who the current Vice-President is.

Ahh fuck it, this response was all over the place. I can't concentrate when I see "analysis" of last nights debate that says that Perry, Bachman, and Romney were the big winners.

We have reached the point where democratic governments are no longer conducive to freedom. That is really all there is to it.

Dec 16, 2011
Cash4Gold:

We have reached the point where democratic governments are no longer conducive to freedom. That is really all there is to it.

DISAGREE, we just have an organization that has consolidated a lot of influence and is now abusing it. Hence, the backlash vote for Obama last election cycle. My honest guess is that if Obama is reelected, he will throw the full weight of the government at FOX and put them out of business.

Dec 16, 2011

WSO, please enlighten me. I can't follow your/Ron Paul's logic here.

First of all, isn't the critique of Paul's Iran stance NOT that he wants to avoid a war - which we of course should - but that he's ok with Iran having nukes? Aren't going to war with Iran and letting them make nukes two different issues? Or, are you all saying that preventing Iran from developing nukes necessarily means we must go to war? Why would that be the case?

Secondly, in general why should anyone be ok with Iran making nukes? Keep in mind I'm not saying Iran is even developing nukes right now...just in general I'm wondering why it would, hypothetically, be ok for them to have nukes, especially given their radical leaders who have associations with radical religion and strongly dislike America. Do you honestly think Iran having nukes poses ABSOLUTELY ZERO threat to America? Furthermore, are you honestly willing to take the chance that they won't use the nukes - however stupid that may be for them - or sell them to terrorists? Do you honestly TRUST the leaders of Iran not to do something like that? Why take such a dangerous chance, however unlikely you may think that outcome may be, especially if we can prevent it without having to go to war?

I feel like an idiot, and maybe I am. I don't know what I'm missing here, probably a lot. Can someone please clear this up for me?

Dec 16, 2011
swagon:

WSO, please enlighten me. I can't follow your/Ron Paul's logic here.

First of all, isn't the critique of Paul's Iran stance NOT that he wants to avoid a war - which we of course should - but that he's ok with Iran having nukes? Aren't going to war with Iran and letting them make nukes two different issues? Or, are you all saying that preventing Iran from developing nukes necessarily means we must go to war? Why would that be the case?

Secondly, in general why should anyone be ok with Iran making nukes? Keep in mind I'm not saying Iran is even developing nukes right now...just in general I'm wondering why it would, hypothetically, be ok for them to have nukes, especially given their radical leaders who have associations with radical religion and strongly dislike America. Do you honestly think Iran having nukes poses ABSOLUTELY ZERO threat to America? Furthermore, are you honestly willing to take the chance that they won't use the nukes - however stupid that may be for them - or sell them to terrorists? Do you honestly TRUST the leaders of Iran not to do something like that? Why take such a dangerous chance, however unlikely you may think that outcome may be, especially if we can prevent it without having to go to war?

I feel like an idiot, and maybe I am. I don't know what I'm missing here, probably a lot. Can someone please clear this up for me?

Do Russia, the UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea also having nuclear weapons represent an "ABSOLUTELY ZERO" threat to the USA? Of course not. Every time a foreign power manufactures a rifle or a bullet, it represents a potential threat to us, so having the criteria of a country's actions being justifiable only if they present "ABSOLUTELY ZERO" threat to the USA is absurd. As crazy and radical as you might like to think Iran's leadership is, they've managed to cobble together a functioning government and economy for the 78 million mostly normal people who live there.

Iran has no reason to nuke Israel or the US. It's not going to happen. Iran's leaders don't give a shit about the existence or national identity of the US or Israel. It's just bigoted demagoguery to appeal to a subset of its population. Iran and Israel have no history of conflict, or really any shared history at all. I view Iran's funding of Hamas and Hezbollah as Iran attempting to gain political power in two regions with power vacuums by supporting the pet causes of radicals. Pakistan and India hate each other's guts and somehow they've managed to avoid a nuclear exchange, even when India had nukes and Pakistan did not.

Does that mean Iran should have nukes? No. But if we can't talk them out of it, the expected outcome is probably better if we just let them have them, because going to war or bombing them will create a shitshow and major unforeseeable blowback.

Dec 16, 2011
swagon:

WSO, please enlighten me. I can't follow your/Ron Paul's logic here.

First of all, isn't the critique of Paul's Iran stance NOT that he wants to avoid a war - which we of course should - but that he's ok with Iran having nukes? Aren't going to war with Iran and letting them make nukes two different issues? Or, are you all saying that preventing Iran from developing nukes necessarily means we must go to war? Why would that be the case?

Secondly, in general why should anyone be ok with Iran making nukes? Keep in mind I'm not saying Iran is even developing nukes right now...just in general I'm wondering why it would, hypothetically, be ok for them to have nukes, especially given their radical leaders who have associations with radical religion and strongly dislike America. Do you honestly think Iran having nukes poses ABSOLUTELY ZERO threat to America? Furthermore, are you honestly willing to take the chance that they won't use the nukes - however stupid that may be for them - or sell them to terrorists? Do you honestly TRUST the leaders of Iran not to do something like that? Why take such a dangerous chance, however unlikely you may think that outcome may be, especially if we can prevent it without having to go to war?

I feel like an idiot, and maybe I am. I don't know what I'm missing here, probably a lot. Can someone please clear this up for me?

I think the core belief that kind of goes like, 'We can have nukes and you can't because we don't trust you,' is outdated and ignorant. Remember, we are the only country to really use nuclear weapons on civilians yet we 'educate' everyone about how dangerous a nuclear Iran would be.

Paul makes the argument that the main reason Iran wants to obtain nuclear weapons is not to wipe others off the face of the earth, but ot gain respect. I much agree to this point, as what good would nuking another country do for Iran? They would be destroyed themselves in a matter of hours.

We didn't trust the Russians during the Cold War, yet both sides prevailed in peace. Yet we put sancitons on a country who doesn't even have nukes yet, because we don't trust them? That's like saying a certain race of people aren't allowed to carry guns because we don't trust them. It just doesn't make sense.

Now, I have been to Israel twice and I am aware of how tight things are over there. I have friends who have served in the Israeli military and I realize what dire straits they are in when it comes to knowing thy enemy. However it's about time that America comes to the realization that the hate for modern day Israel can very much be directed at the way the Palestinians are being treated in Israel. If you read Robert Fisk (The Independent), you get a very unbiased view on how things work in Israel and why the whole middle east is in an uproar over the events taking place there.

It's really one big confusing shit show, and there is really no RIGHT and WRONG. That is why the problem has never and probably never will be solved. There is only war and peace. As long as the posturing continues, the Muslim countries will be threatened and in turn Israel will be threatened, and then the US will feel 'responsible' to intervene. What Paul is simply saying is that we must take ourselves out of the equation (even if temporarily) if we want to avoid further military conflict and blowback.

Dec 16, 2011

Newt, Romney, and Bachmann have basically said if they suspect Iran has/is building nukes, they would bomb the sites. Hell, Perry said we should forcefully take our drone back that Iran currently has.

I am hoping you don't get destroyed by some others because I feel you posed a legit and polite debate/question.

Dec 16, 2011

Completely off topic:

Why didn't the drone that crashed in Iran have some sort of self destruction mechanism? Does that only exist in spy movies? You would think that it would have the ability to blow itself to oblivion...

Dec 16, 2011
duffmt6:

Completely off topic:

Why didn't the drone that crashed in Iran have some sort of self destruction mechanism? Does that only exist in spy movies? You would think that it would have the ability to blow itself to oblivion...

Yea, I had the same concern here. Those drones probably cost millions of dollars and don't even have the most rudimentary abilities. It shows what you get for your money when the government is doing the spending. Google the F-22 and F-35 and you will see the type of unfettered corruption government spending entails.

Any first year electrical engineer could have attached some thermite to a satellite phone so it could be detonated in case of a crash landing.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

Dec 16, 2011
Comment

Pages