4 Comments Already

1. james wilson says:

   October 31, 2010 at 2:20 pm

   It is very well said that a lie is effective according to the degree of truths it contains. Ron Paul’s opinions about foreign policy contain important truths, but an Islamic nutter is not only not going to go after you if you ignore him, he is going to go after you because he mistakes that for weakness. The religion of Submission literally understands nothing else–ours or theirs. That is a bit of a problem for the West.

   They were a dogmatic people, despising doubt, our modern crown of thorns. They did not understand our metaphysical difficulties, our introspective questionings. They knew only truth and untruth, belief and unbelief, without our hesitating retinue of finer shades–T. H. Lawrence

   Reply
2. Kent says:

   October 31, 2010 at 12:06 pm

   Monty

   First, I want to again thank younger your site, which is always informative, thought provoking, fearless and to the point. Ron Paul could not have supported WW II based on his own arguments. Even after the Pearl Harbor attack – which he would have explained was the fault not of the Japanese, but of prior interventionist foreign policy of the US. In other words, Pearl Harbor was our fault. The European war would be completely unjustified as we had no reason to invest money and blood in a purely European affair.

   As for Thomas Sowell, one of his primary complaints about Obama is his failure to deal with the growing threat from Iran, an issue Ron Paul would completely ignore on the basis that any action bynus would create animosity on the part of the Iranian leaders that would justify hostilities against us. Thomas Sowell views the US as having a serious role in world affairs as a leader and a supporter of freedom. He is not a “neocon” but he definitely is not an isolationist like Ron Paul. Thomas Sowell understands that human nature and history indicate that tyrannical regimes will always exist and will threaten free countries unless they are deterred.

   I believe he is right. Ron Paul has a complere blind spot related to national security.

   Reply
3. Kent says:

   October 31, 2010 at 8:30 am

   So what he is saying is that the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and WWII should not have been fought because they were based on lies from the state. Ron Paul is good on economics and incredibly blind when in the area of foreign affairs. Obviously certain wars that have been fought should not have been fought. But there are many times in the life of a free nation when wars are a necessary and right thing to do. And to suggest that all the hatred of the US that exists in the Moslem world is due to US policy is the triumph of ideology over facts. I suggest that a far better guide in the realm of foreign affairs would be Thomas Sowell, a current day observer with far more understanding of the world, human nature, and America’s proper role. There is a website that identified Sowell as the greatest philosopher of our time. That site would not hold up Ron Paul as an authority outside of the realm of economics.

   Reply
   • Monty Pelerin says:

     October 31, 2010 at 10:06 am

     Kent,

     I don’t want to speak for Ron Paul.

     My personal opinion is that wars are sometimes necessary, but that the State often manages to find reasons/justifications that are invalid. The three wars you suggested probably present the strongest cases for war and even those are not black and white. The Revolutionary War I think most would agree should have been fought (although only a minority of the people at the time were in favor of it). It was a war against oppressive government.

     The Civil War, in my opinion, should not have been fought. That was oppressive government imposing its will on the people. What type of republic or democracy do we have if people want to leave and government goes to war to prevent them from exercising that right?

     I suspect that Ron Paul would have agreed with WWII (but probably not WWI). On balance, I think Ron Paul is probably right. We have been in nearly constant war in this country for about 70 years.

     Sowell and Paul probably don’t disagree as much as you suggest. I am a bigger fan of Sowell than Paul. Both play important roles in different venues. Sowell is also a much better economist than Paul.

     I appreciate your comments on a very complex subject.

     Monty

     Reply