Comments on: ‘A Traditional Non-Intervention Foreign Policy’: Ron Paul at Johns Hopkins

By: James H. Allen

James H. Allen — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:13:44 +0000

IRAQ WAR-POSITION PAPAER
As kids, we learn very early on in school and at home that we are to be obedient and never to question “God, Our Country, or Family.” We have been taught to believe that these three entities are too be trusted above all else. Indeed, it should be so, but alas, in today’s tumultuous times, we cannot rely on past paradigms, but we must now, if not challenge, at least look at each situation on a case-by-case basis and to become independent thinkers.

I believe that if we think of the War in Iraq in the following medical terms-we can provide more Americans a better understanding of our dilemma in Iraq.

Our invasion of Iraq is identical to a severe cut or bruise that we get when we fall down and injure ourselves. The surface area around that bruise will immediately go into a defensive mode, ensuring that no germs enter the area and our body will begin repairing the damage done. If the condition is more severe than that area can handle, other parts of our body, fluids, etc will begin assisting that area of need. If the situation worsens, and there is an invasion of germs and other microorganisms, parts of our body may even shut down, so that greater attention can be given to the battle between keeping our body healthy and the sickness that may occur.

WE-as INVADERS, are the infestation to the BODY-IRAQ. Sure, we may use our military might to convince ourselves that we can win this WAR. But they (Iraqis) will and are prepared to die, before allowing invaders to come to their land and change their way of life. It is as it should be, it is a foundational principle. When our body goes into defense mode, ALL functions of our body, to the extent necessary, will work as ONE to contend with the invasion of microorganisms. Until ALL germs are eliminated or until death, will the body continue to fight. Such is life; such is the way of MAN.

This present situation and our (American’s) arrogance can only be defined as a Pyrrhic affair (A victory achieved at great or excessive cost; a ruinous victory). It is as if we have a “WIN AT ALL COST” philosophy. However, those who are making these decisions are not the ones willing to put their own, or their love one’s life on the line. They are anxious and more than willing to send our young men and women who have not yet gain the experience of life, those who are looking to seek their own independence and moreover, those who do not understand the subliminal messages that are conveyed through the media that would make them want to prove themselves on the field of battle, to fight in a war that was doomed to fail before it began.

We should revisit our selected President’s speech and declare victory as he expressed, “Mission Accomplished”. In his own famous words, “All major military operations will now cease.” Declare victory and leave! IN ADDITION, we must also appropriate funding to THEIR (IRAQIS) contractors to rebuild THEIR own cities in THEIR own way. AGAIN, if we use OUR contractors to do the job, the people will rebel. Is it possible for germs to assist in the repair of the body? I think NOT! Germs do not take ANY part in the rebuilding of the body. The body does all the work-gladly. However they decide to use the money, it is up to THEM – NOT US.

I express this opinion not to degrade any efforts of goodwill that America has attempted to express. I certainly value the contributions that our armed forces have given. Nevertheless, it is unfair to continue further down a path of destruction without being true to the principles of ethics and the fundamental laws of nature. Bring the troops home!

By: free online casino guide

free online casino guide — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 04:27:22 +0000

I stared that method barring the result. One casino is freshly ruling. This unique wife spun the gambler dizzily. I swept that side opposite to this money. Striking council is the absolute light. Electronic council is that varying record.
free online casino guide – http://www.bgriver.com/

By: Kate

Kate — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 01:57:28 +0000

The audio’s up here: http://www.sais-jhu.edu/

By: Marycatherine Barton

Marycatherine Barton — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:17:29 +0000

Thank you so much, all. I sure as heck ain’t buying their bs anymore, but the harder Paul runs, the more they try to sell the same old bs.

By: Reviving the Constitution � Mr. Paul Goes to Washington-Politics and Government-EOG Sports Betting Forums

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:57:55 +0000

[...] Reviving the Constitution � Mr. Paul Goes to Washington Reviving the Constitution � Mr. Paul Goes to Washington by Lila Rajiva On Tuesday, Sept 11, the date of the WTC terrorist attacks, Ron Paul is giving a keynote policy addressat the influential Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, D.C. His topic is “A Traditional Non-Intervention Foreign Policy.” If you wanted to quibble, you could. Personally, I would have preferred it to read, “A Rational Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy.” Or “A Constitutional Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy.” Because there are traditions and traditions. And while those of us who are intellectually of a conservative bent tend to give any tradition the benefit of the doubt, it will not do to consider non-intervention a good by virtue only of its history, when history is composted with the bones of institutions that rotted from the inside. Traditions are prone to developing hardening of the categories � as some wit noted � and if we classify non-intervention as one, then we are surely inviting some clever update of it. We are asking for the Monroe Doctrine to be turned into Manifest Destiny � with gender neutrality and racial sensitivity thrown in to certify it kosher. But the Constitution of America � whatever its alleged and real flaws (and it isn�t free of them) � has been a guiding light to this nation and countless others not because it is a tradition but because the principles it embodies are rational, in the highest sense of the word, and because they are worthy of emulation. The Constitution is universal in its appeal. But it is universal because it persuades by its reasonableness, not because it imposes itself over the breadth of the globe as the law of an empire. The distinction is of some importance today. Because there are those who demand exactly the opposite � an interventionist foreign policy � for exactly the same reason � universality. You could call them “liberventionists.” They are the humanitarian bombers, like Mr. Hitchens. (That is, when he can find the time in between conducting his jihad against what he likes to call god but sounds more like theological literalism.) The liberventionists were the people who demanded that we go into Iraq in the first place. Also for universal reasons � one of which was to rescue Iraqi women from patriarchal Islamic traditions. Even though Iraq, under Saddam, was never Islamicist � until the U.S went into it. The rhetoric of war quickly sidelined such inconvenient facts. I am afraid it might sideline this one: Requiring a war to be constitutional is not a quaint tradition waiting to be made obsolete by age and time, like a spinster running out of marriage proposals. It is an imperative, since constitutionality is the only language possible in a country whose citizens have such divergent backgrounds and hold such contradictory views that they might as well live on the opposite sides of the globe. The constitution is the only form of reasonableness available to us any more. The only kind of universal appeal that appeals finally to something more than naked force. The constitution is a different kind of universality. Of “how” rather than “what.” It points to procedures and ways of “going on” � not to results and places where we ought to arrive. The insightful English political philosopher Michael Oakeshott described the difference between the two approaches as the difference between the rules of a civil association (such as a nation) and that of an enterprise association (such as a business). The constitution is the governing law of the civil association called America. On the other hand, the new laws this administration is replacing the Constitution which are different creatures. They are the regulations of the business called US Govt. Inc. US Govt. Inc. is not a nation at all, but a vast holding company with unlimited liability for its innumerable tiny shareholders and none at all for the handful of directors at the top. And with many of its most valuable assets hidden off-shore through international trade agreements. The dangers of a change from association to enterprise are self-evident: If we already know before-hand where we want to get to, we may be tempted to hijack the laws � and logic itself � to that end. But what could be wrong with that, some might ask? Aren�t freedom, democracy, and human rights “social goods” for which our laws should strive? And in countries beyond the reach of our laws, shouldn�t we impose them through our military? But language, like logic, is slippery unless it is rooted in something deeper than either words or minds. As one commentator on Oakeshott writes: “Words such as ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and ‘rights’ have long histories and their meanings have shifted over time. Further, when unscrupulous operators use them to rally supporters in some great cause, such words become hazy promises of better things to come. The warm glow of anticipation may be as deceptive as the witches’ promises to Macbeth…” Our words and our minds reach deep into our bodies in a way we don�t fully understand, except that they operate together. It is not just that the way we think affects the way we act, but the converse: The way we act affects the way we think. If we violate our consciences, we will tend to alter our consciences after the fact. And then alter our language and our logic, as well. To be truly rational, we need to go beyond disembodied words and logic to a reason that is rooted in our bodies, our intuitions, and our consciences � as they are inviolate in us, as individuals. That means that our rules and our institutions must preserve us ultimately as free individuals, while preserving equally the freedom of all other individuals. My liberty cannot infringe on yours. No, not even if I am the President of the United States. Even the President must be bound by the Constitution� s rules. That is not a very good thing for US Gvt Inc. Because following the rules does not always help an enterprise association (whether it is a business or a state), reach the goal it sets for itself. It might even hinder it. But following the rules is a marvelous thing for the civil association called America. Because by following the rules and conventions of the constitution citizens can let themselves be seen as acting in good faith, not only here at home, but everywhere. It is adherence to the Constitution that makes us a nation of laws and not of men. Without that, there can be no good faith. And without good faith, we will no longer be part of a civil association of individuals, but only insignificant units in an enterprise that can only grow more and more barbaric. http://www.lewrockw ell.com/rajiva/ rajiva7.html [...]

By: Lila Rajiva: The Mind-Body Politic » Ron Paul Revolution: Mr. Paul goes to Washington

Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:20:18 +0000

[...] On Tuesday, Sept 11, the anniversary of the WTC terrorist attacks, Ron Paul is giving a keynote policy address at the influential Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, D.C. [...]

By: Dennis Spain

Dennis Spain — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:49:23 +0000

Give ‘em hell, Steve. Nice succinct accounting of the State’s atrocities.

By: drsubrotoroy

drsubrotoroy — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:00:51 +0000

Dr Paul needs to know he is walking into the Lions’ Den at Johns Hopkins SAIS. The Nitze School has been the real academic home of Paul Wolfowitz and his NeoCon friends for years.

It well may be a trap — Dr Paul can expect to be politely but devastatingly attacked and should have answers ready.

Eg if he says, follow the Constitution, they will say times have changed;

if he says bring the troops home, they will say, don’t you know America has interests abroad?

etc etc.

By: Lila Rajiva

Lila Rajiva — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 15:59:37 +0000

Just fyi and to be evenhanded,

here is Eliot Cohen’s rebuttal of the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401282.html

By: lester

lester — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 14:56:15 +0000

this speech should have been given 9/12/01 if not earlier

By: Lila Rajiva

Lila Rajiva — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 13:12:49 +0000

That’s Brzezinksi, sorry..

By: Lila Rajiva

Lila Rajiva — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 13:11:46 +0000

The Nitze school has a number of important hawks like Fukuyama and Eliot Cohen, as well as Brzinzinski, the Carter advisor who was the principal culprit behind the misbegotten policy with the world-wide mujahadeen. But the Nitze school also has many prominent area-studies departments that might be very sympathetic to Paul’s positions.

It would be a mistake to see this invitation solely as a trap. Hopkins (I studied there)is like any large university; it has its share of free-thinking individuals. Fukuyama himself has jumped ship on Iraq. And it was a Hopkins study that first drew attention to the deaths of Iraqi children from the sanctions.

If you notice, Walt and Mearsheimer’s book on the influence of the Israeli lobby is now a top seller at Amazon. That may be an indication that the realist camp of foreign policy thinkers in the academy has had it with the more overtly hawkish group….. for whatever reason. The invitation to SAIS may be further proof of that rift, although of course, one can never be entirely sure of these things.