Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven
If the government had stuck to the vision and principles of Ron Paul throughout the 20th century, and not covertly overthrown democratically elected governments, propped up and armed horrific maniacal dictators, imposed sanctions which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Arabs, immersed itself in Mesopotamian border disputes, and started wars against nations that never attacked us -- bin Laden would never have had any reason to attack us in the first place.
|
But see Beemnseven that logic is sort of flawed because you presuppose that the world operates according to the same moral code; that the law of morality always, in every circumstance, trumps immoral and sinister deeds. And more importantly that the United States is insulated from the rest of the world.
We don't live in a society where everything goes from A to B - where good always overcomes evil. The premise of your argument actually suggests, on some level, that evil doesn't exist. And that if we mind our business other people will mind theirs. That's not good policy, it's not good diplomacy, and I'm not sure it's even constitutional.
Maybe I'm reading too much into your statement, but I'm not convinced that Ron Paul, or you for that matter, would stand up for America based on some strict constitutional requirement. In other words, if the choices are should the government run a prolonged military operation or draw the line in the sand and give up because of how we interpret the constitution, then I don't like Ron Paul's vision for America.
Give me George W. Bush any day of the week, warts and all, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies,
foreign and domestic. When our sovereignty is under siege and our freedoms are in jeopardy, I don't want a leader to interpret the Constitution, I want a leader to defend and protect it at all costs.