Friday, July 27, 2007

Ron Paul gets it right: US overthrew Iran in 1953

I admit I find Rep. Ron Paul's (R-Texas) campaign for president interesting, and I think the guy's more sincere than most people who are running for, and who have ever run for, that office. While I don't support him as a candidate, I do respect a lot of what he says.

At the Republican presidential debate, Rep. Paul stated that the United States suffered the blowback from a US-sponsored 1953 coup of the Iranian government which deposed the legitimately elected leader of Iran and reïnstalled the vicious tyrant, Shah Reza Pehlavi, whom we Americans backed. We ousted, with our CIA, Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadek, because he believed Iran should control Iranian oil fields, not British and American companies. See the clip below, which splices Rep. Paul's 2007 debate performance with a 1987 PBS documentary:

Rep. Paul is right: we ignore our excesses at our own peril. Instead of the simplistic "Why do they hate us?" question, or the ultra-simplistic "Axis of Evil" sentiment, we need to recognize that our actions have consequences, and if the United States insists on treating foreign nations and nationalities like pawns and property, we're going to suffer blowback. The Bush administration pays no mind to this reality with its foreign policy, which is why every day Bush continues to run the country is another day our foreign policy gets mired deeper in an intractable, ever-bloodier quagmire.

Ron Paul is the only Republican running for president who actually talks sense regarding foreign policy, who actually bothers to look at real issues, searching for real solutions. Mind, since I don't approve of Paul's domestic ideas or of libertarian politics in general, I won't support Paul, either; I instead prefer to back either Barack Obama or John Edwards. But Ron Paul is certainly the best Republican running this year (though, admittedly, that's not saying much.)

Labels: , , , , , , , ,


At Friday, July 27, 2007 at 8:32:00 PM EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The US presidency has way too much power. The presidency should be restored to a position of honor and respect, limited by the constitution to simply one of the branches of the federal government. As it is, Obama or Edwards will go power mad with such a presidency.

The dollar has dropped in value 9% this year when compared to the Euro. The Euro is heavily inflated. You do the math. We need Ron Paul in office yesterday.

Neither Obama nor Edwards will get us out of war. Nor do they have any idea of how to keep out of war.

We in the US can be an example in many ways. One way is an example on how to prosper in the 21st century. We need to be able to trade and work in a world market, not under foreign rules or entanglements but by doing what we do best. To be a world leader the US must maintain its sovereignty and identity. Only Ron Paul can do this.

Ron Paul has not only knowledge of history and foreign affairs, but of economics and politics. He is called Dr. No, but he is also Dr. Know. We need him for all aspects of the presidency, not just foreign affairs.

At Tuesday, July 31, 2007 at 11:26:00 AM EDT, Blogger Kurt Kaletka said...

The euro's fine. The problem is that the dollar is dropping, due largely in part to our weakening economy. It's been weakened by outsourcing and laissez-faire economics, suffice it to say, but it's also due to the fact that the rest of the world's economy is strengthening.

Obama and Edwards (and Paul) can't get us out of war because the United States is not at war. We've got troops stationed in the middle of Iraq's civil war, but our actual war ended in 2004. "Mission accomplished," remember? We're losing the peace badly, though. But we don't need a president who's afraid of "foreign entanglements." We need a president who realizes that all countries are already entangled with each other, and that we need to find a way to work with them. Someone who starts out afraid of the euro and sure we simply need to pull out of Iraq is not what we need.

No president, Mr. Paul included, will diminish presidential power. That's something that Congress is going to have to manage to wrest from the Executive branch somehow. It's happened before, but it'll be difficult. I don't expect we'll see that change any time soon, I'm afraid.

For 2008, we need Obama or Edwards. If we could get them in office yesterday, I'd be pleased. But Ron Paul is a libertarian, and libertarians believe that government can't work. Someone of such little faith in government has no business actually leading government. Why hand the presidency to someone who says that government can't—or shouldn't—work? That was George W. Bush in 2000, and look how well that turned out...


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home