I think America (and other nations) making those kinds of judgements is what created this mess in the first place.
I said "perhaps." No one can say for sure whether Paul wants or does not want such an outcome. He clearly is indifferent to the events in that area.
On the Syria issue, I have long opposed U.S. military intervention or support for any of the warring factions. The Kurdish situation is a different matter given a combination of interests and the real risk of genocide. Hence, I support U.S. air strikes on the Islamic State terrorist organization and weapons shipments to the Kurdish Regional Government.
The Kurds did amazingly well even in a Hostile Saddam-Iraq when we provided No-fly zones from 1991-2003.Amazing what a little air supremacy will do for a ****ed up situation.
Great, now we've entered everything-is-the-same land! Obviously, liberal democracies causing collateral damage in self-defense against terrorists is equivalent to a theocracy rampaging with the intent to wipe out an entire religious group.
I do agree, though, that there is a double standard in regards to the victims being Christian. ISIS imposes absolute religious rule and executes POWs, dissidents, and Shia, but only when Christians suffer do many people start saying enough is enough.
I think some would argue that dead children are dead children. When you blow up a school that you know innocent children are in, does it really matter how you're justifying it?
Those that are responsible for US foreign policy in the ME for the last few decades love you.
If the Kurds were put in charge of the country things would get a lot better.
Ron Paul is certainly not indifferent towards the trouble in the ME and has condemned US interference there for decades. And NO chance he's interested in seeing an Islamic state. Like I said, that's been the apparent aim of those responsible for US FP in the ME for years.
Specifically, the question concerns what steps Ron Paul proposes to contain or roll back the Islamic State. Unless I'm mistaken, he's proposed none to date. I found nothing concrete on his website, even as I found much criticism of U.S. policy. Criticism is one thing and I'm not saying one can't be critical. But he's offered no alternatives to the emergent policy to deal with the Islamic State. If he has something that he thinks is better, he should make that suggestion.
If Ron Paul's suggestions regarding policy for the ME for YEARS now had been followed, we wouldn't be talking about IS. A bit disingenuous to suggest that he should have a constructive policy for the present crisis that his policies would have avoided to begin with.
Its entirely likely that there would some other fundamentalist extremist group causing murder and mayhem AND you would still have Saddam Hussein in power (its rather comical that so many people today long for Saddam to still be in charge). Mubarak was a kind and benevolent leader by comparison, and liberals en masse supported his ouster. Liberals were glad to see the Shah removed because he was a forceful leader that knew how to keep his people in check, especially the religious groups.If Ron Paul's suggestions regarding policy for the ME for YEARS now had been followed, we wouldn't be talking about IS. A bit disingenuous to suggest that he should have a constructive policy for the present crisis that his policies would have avoided to begin with.
I don't disagree with the idea that the 2003 Iraq war proved destabilizing for the region and adversely impacted the region's balance of power. In that situation, Iran was freed to pursue regional hegemony. At the same time, the environment became more conducive to the renewed efforts by sectarian and Islamist elements to remake parts of the region. Those forces had been rising even before the war, but a less stable environment amplified those forces.
The 1991 Persian Gulf War involved vital American interests, as Iraq posed a credible threat to Saudi Arabia, gaining control of a disproportionate share of the world's oil supplies, and shutting down passage of oil shipments through the Persian Gulf. Hence, the case for driving Iraq out of Kuwait was very strong and I strongly support President George H.W. Bush's decision on that matter. Moreover, that war had a limited objective that extended as far as the vital American interests did: end the threat to those interests. It did not seek to embark on a course of regime change in Iraq and democratization.
Having said all that, today's policy choices have to deal with the proverbial hand that has been dealt. One can't argue about a past that cannot be undone. Hence, whether one is dealing with President Obama, former Secretary of State Clinton, potential GOP candidates, Ron Paul, among others, if one is critical of policy choices being adopted, one should also offer constructive alternatives. Doing so is more difficult than simply critiquing yesterday's or today's policy choices.
Its entirely likely that there would some other fundamentalist extremist group causing murder and mayhem AND you would still have Saddam Hussein in power (its rather comical that so many people today long for Saddam to still be in charge). Mubarak was a kind and benevolent leader by comparison, and liberals en masse supported his ouster. Liberals were glad to see the Shah removed because he was a forceful leader that knew how to keep his people in check, especially the religious groups.
Fundamentalist Muslims have been murdering people with and without the US involvement.The US doesnt influence their belief system and their belief system is that ultimately they will rule the world and if you are not just a Muslim but their SECT of Muslim...you will ultimately perish. All that has happened over the last 6 years is that the world turned a blind eye to the building storm.
That's the point, Ron Paul has offered constructive alternatives to destructive US policies in the ME since at least the CIA sponsored coup in Iran in 1953. STOP interfering in Middle Eastern countries internal affairs like this which create animosity toward the US. This has been RP's message as long as he was in congress. Decades of FAILED US policy in the ME has delivered us the wretched condition that exists at the present with sectarian violence spreading. One of the few voices that have perennially opposed US policies there shouldn't be the one criticised for not having the answer to reverse this damage.
I've frequently noted that Ron Paul is far more a prophet than a leader. Leaders need to act based on the situation that confronts them. It is not enough to stick to advocacy of a vision regardless of the merits of such a vision.
Whether it is President Obama today or a successor tomorrow, the President will need to make decisions based on the circumstances of his or her time. That such circumstances were shaped, in part, by decisions made in the past by the U.S., along with external forces many of which are beyond U.S. influence, matters little. They still need to make choices. Sometimes one has to make the least bad choice from among options that are all not very appealing.
As one who falls in the Realist foreign policy camp, my focus would be on limiting American intervention to cases where critical American interests are involved. That would mean focusing on maintaining an open Persian Gulf, assuring that the regional balance of power does not shift in a position to threaten that vital interest, and safeguarding and supporting regional American allies (Israel, Jordan, Egypt), etc. I don't support using military force for democratization projects, as democracy depends far more on internal factors than who heads a country. I don't support military action where there is an absence of critical American interests i.e., I opposed recent U.S. military intervention in Libya and oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's sectarian conflict.
My position differs from that of neoconservatives who believe force can be used to expand the sphere of democracy and liberal internationalists who believe that international law essentially supplants the balance of power/Realpolitik and can be used to liberalize countries. I also do not support to the evolution in liberal internationalist thought concerning the use of force under the notion of a "responsibility to protect." Genocide, consistent with the definition in the Convention on Genocide is a singular exception. Sudan, Syria, Nigeria, etc., do not fit that definition. My position also differs from the neo-isolationist/non-interventionist group, which is built on the assumption that the U.S. essentially has no critical overseas interests and, therefore, should not intervene in international developments.
All of this does not mean that I'm right, nor that my positions should not be criticized, etc. However, that's the context in which I suggest that the U.S. airstrikes against the Islamic State on behalf of the Kurdish Regional government, arms provided to the Kurdish Regional Government are appropriate, and if that government declares sovereignty, the U.S. should support that outcome. The KRG is a friendly government to U.S. interests, has been a reliable partner, it is democratic in nature, though its democracy is not the key factor, and the Islamic State has threatened genocide against the Yazidis.
At the same time, I don't support similar measures on behalf of Baghdad (something advocated by Senator McCain). The Iraqi government headed by Prime Minister Maliki has not been reliable with respect to U.S. interests, has been sectarian not inclusive in nature, which has played a large role in allowing the Islamic State to gain traction in Iraq, and the Prime Minister has called out armed forces to potentially hold onto power, bully Baghdad's other political actors, etc.
Sure...endorsing extremist fundamentalists in their bid to overthrow governments will indeed tend to create instability. Thats been a cornerstone of the current administrations foreign policy. That doesnt mean there arent logical ways to deal with brutal dictators.I'm no liberal, and its apparent to me that removing Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and now Assad is precisely what has emboldened militant Islamic jihadists. That can of worms has been opened, Russia was right that US interference would cause sectarian violence to spread throughout the region.
Actually, Ron Paul wouldn't prefer that, and I doubt you can quote him saying such. But if anything has pushed the ME towards an Islamic state, its US policy in the region for decades. And most recently, the breaking out of Syria by IS (ISIS), is just what Russia and China warned three years ago that US interference in Syria would produce.
I'm no liberal, and its apparent to me that removing Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and now Assad is precisely what has emboldened militant Islamic jihadists. That can of worms has been opened, Russia was right that US interference would cause sectarian violence to spread throughout the region.
Alright!
Our friends, the Peshmerga, have taken back two areas from ISIS.
As always, the Kurds just need a little help to overcome. Overcome the heavy weaponry ISIS had taken from the Iraqi Army further South.
Keep the strikes up, but none for Maliki's mini-Iran in the South unless Baghdad is truly endanger of falling.
Kurdish Forces Reverse Militant Gains as U.S. Continues Airstrikes
U.S. Warplanes Hit Targets for a Third Day
By DION NISSENBAUM/MICHELLE HACKMAN
WSJ - Updated Aug. 10, 2014 4:01 p.m. ET
Kurdish Forces Reverse Militant Gains as U.S. Continues Airstrikes in Iraq - WSJ
I remain in favor of not just a Kurdish autonomus region but a Kurdish state. The latter, admittedly, a much more difficult proposition.
The Yazidis and other minorities, incl Christians, remain in Deep trouble in the area, although the Sinjar Mountain seige has loosened somewhat.
Also reports that Hundreds of Yazidi women have been taken as 'war wives'; an untold amount of casualties on that front.
Sure...endorsing extremist fundamentalists in their bid to overthrow governments will indeed tend to create instability. Thats been a cornerstone of the current administrations foreign policy. That doesnt mean there arent logical ways to deal with brutal dictators.
Say...you know who was really great with controlling his population? That Hitler guy. Sorry...leaving Hussein in power would have made as much sense as just attempting to contain Hitler.
maybe isis would not have formed if we had interveaned in syria.
aren't you forgetting about Tunisia? you know? the country where the arab spring movement originally began, after a tunisian man set himself on fire to protest the government of tunisia? come to think of it i think tunisia is relatively stable compared to other countries. i may be wrong of course
Hitler gassed millions. Hussein used human shredders on people. He used chemical weapons to destroy entire villages merely because they opposed him.For Christ sakes, if you don't know the difference between Hitler and Hussein, I haven't anything further to say to you on this subject.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?