... so I'll bore you with more strawman argument against Ron Paul:
an absolutist, doctrinaire policy of pacifism
Ron Paul's policy on the use of force (as is that of most libertarians) is based on non-aggression (don't start none, won't be none). While I agree that he could be more specific when he talks about "blowback", I agree that we have no business in Afghanastan or Iraq (except to deliver tactical nukes!).
Non-aggression ≠ pacifism (unless you're a neo-con). In my life, I try to be as non-aggressive as I can be, but (as I suspect Paul would) if you come around trying to start some, I'll do my damnedest to end it, and in my favor.
That's what Ron Paul want's to get back to - getting explicit congressional authority for military action. Novel concept, no?
Now, I agree that Ron Paul needs to explain what he would have done about the 9/11 attacks (beyond just saying we shouldn't be in the middle east) that's better than what Bush did and why.
pm
No comments:
Post a Comment