Why Ron Paul's Foreign Policy is the most beneficial to US

[thenelli01]

Matt, I respect your refusal to take mainstream sentiment as gospel and your attempt to weigh the history of US foreign policy fairly. But you make it sound as if there wasn't a Shah in Iran before '53. From what I understand, the Shah was involved in an internal power struggle with populist elements in Iran. Those populist elements nationalized (read: expropriated) Western oil fields prior to the US/British decision to back the Shah. With this in mind, can we really say that the US "started it?"

You are correct. However, I disagree with your classification of it being "the US/British decision" because they supported the shah for different reasons. Actually the US was sympathetic with the Iranians until Eisenhower took office. But it was Eisenhower who fell victim to propaganda, from my understanding, and was convinced by the British to help intervene in Iran by being warned of a (barely existent) threat that the Soviets might influence and take over. We also recieved some of the oil profits.

So I would call this a misuse of the military and an example of our unnecessary intervention that was precipitated by the propaganda of special interest groups. This was Britain's problem, not ours.

And then we ended up propping up the shah, gave aid to the SAVAK, which was the secret police force, and the blowback came in 1979 when the people took over with the Iranian revolution and an anti-western leader took over.

And the ongoing campaign against the US has been happening ever since. So we really have to have someone as president who understands the history if we want to handle the situation correctly.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Matt Giannelli

[Nicky]

You are correct. However, I disagree with your classification of it being "the US/British decision" because they supported the shah for different reasons. Actually the US was sympathetic with the Iranians until Eisenhower took office. But it was Eisenhower who fell victim to propaganda, from my understanding, and was convinced by the British to help intervene in Iran by being warned of a (barely existent) threat that the Soviets might influence and take over. We also recieved some of the oil profits.

So I would call this a misuse of the military and an example of our unnecessary intervention that was precipitated by the propaganda of special interest groups. This was Britain's problem, not ours.

And then we ended up propping up the shah, gave aid to the SAVAK, which was the secret police force, and the blowback came in 1979 when the people took over with the Iranian revolution and an anti-western leader took over.

And the ongoing campaign against the US has been happening ever since. So we really have to have someone as president who understands the history if we want to handle the situation correctly.

We need a President who thinks there was barely a Soviet threat, some unmentioned propaganda caused Eisenhower to back a coup, that "the people took over" in Iran in the revolution?

And, more importantly, we need a President who thinks militant Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with Iran's behavior for the past four decades? It's all because we backed the Shah?

[FeatherFall]

Matt, I agree that it's very important to guard against blowback in foreign policy, but I challenge your assertion that anti-Western sentiment was a result of blowback. It was clear that there were anti-Western elements in Iran prior to '53. Those elements precipitated Western intervention when they nationalized Western oil fields. They were damaging Western interests (and violating the rights of Western businessmen, indirectly harming anyone with whom those businessmen traded) prior to the first event that you think caused blowback. I don't see how this is arguable.

What do you think the proper response is when a country is involved in internal conflict, and one side of that conflict violates the rights of businesses from a second country? It seems to me there are three options. One is for the second nation to wage war against the first. Another is to have the second country try to resolve the first country's internal conflict a beneficial way (the option taken by the West in this case). The last is to have the government of the second country fail in its role as protector of the rights of its citizens (do nothing).

[Dániel Boros]

It isn't necessarily true that a business is owned by citizens from the same country as the business. The shareholders may be from several countries.

If someones try to take over your oil production facilities I would argue that destroying these facilities or threatening to destroy them would be a logical choice...

Guess who's gonna rebuild them!?

A full scare war is a bit much in my opinion.

[FeatherFall]

Daniel, scorched earth policy is only an option when there is no chance that you can keep your land or facilities. Your last post exemplifies the biggest weakness in the "blowback" theory of Middle Eastern foreign policy. You took care to ignore the fact that governments don't have a right to nationalize capital. When they nationalize they initiate force and, ethically speaking, invite retaliation. Western action to prevent Iranian nuclear capability is actually blowback for past Iranian activity, not the other way around.

Edited February 18, 2012 by FeatherFall
grammar

[Dániel Boros]

I said threaten them with blowing the stuff up... not necessarily blow it up

Past grievances should not be maintained forever. Under the law even crimes such as stealing can become forfeited. (20 years or so)

If you get robbed you can retaliate or do nothing, but don't come back after 20 years to stab the robbers child if you did not take any action.

If we would do this blowback thing in Europe WWII would be still going on...

By the WWII was blowback for WWI... so I guess it was okay...

[thenelli01]

We need a President who thinks there was barely a Soviet threat, some unmentioned propaganda caused Eisenhower to back a coup, that "the people took over" in Iran in the revolution?

And, more importantly, we need a President who thinks militant Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with Iran's behavior for the past four decades? It's all because we backed the Shah?

I believe you may have misunderstood me. There was barely a threat that the Soviets would take over Iran.. remember that this was the time of the Red Scare, where allegations of communism were used as tools of propaganda to accomplish goals.

I didn't say it was all because we backed the shah but it is a huge reason. Think about it from the stand point if it happened to you. We staged a coup and then propped up the oppressive shah for decades. Then we aided and trained the secret police, SAVAK, which killed and tortured anyone that opposed the shah. This was ongoing for DECADES.

Nothing is more illogical, which all the republican candidates say (besides RP), than to declare: "They hate us because we are rich, free, and have a lifestyle that is opposed to their's." I will not vote for anyone who claims that because it shows their lack of understanding of history and blowback. Regardless of whether you think that the intervention was justified, it is illogical to ignore the effect that it had on their view of America.

I will respond more when I return home.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Matt Giannelli

[Mikee]

I said threaten them with blowing the stuff up... not necessarily blow it up

Past grievances should not be maintained forever. Under the law even crimes such as stealing can become forfeited. (20 years or so)

If you get robbed you can retaliate or do nothing, but don't come back after 20 years to stab the robbers child if you did not take any action.

If we would do this blowback thing in Europe WWII would be still going on...

By the WWII was blowback for WWI... so I guess it was okay...

blowing it up can also be an option

[Grames]

I believe you may have misunderstood me. There was barely a threat that the Soviets would take over Iran.. remember that this was the time of the Red Scare,

It was not an unjustified, irrational, emotional "Scare". In 1953 the Soviets had the largest and most capable land army in the world, an avowed goal of world domination, a crusading self-righteousness that the leading intellectuals in the western world granted was valid, and were actually occupying half of Europe. Vietnam, Cuba, the Prague Spring and Sputnik were all in the future.

Daniel, scorched earth policy is only an option when there is no chance that you can keep your land or facilities. Your last post exemplifies the biggest weakness in the "blowback" theory of Middle Eastern foreign policy. You took care to ignore the fact that governments don't have a right to nationalize capital. When they nationalize they initiate force and, ethically speaking, invite retaliation. Western action to prevent Iranian nuclear capability is actually blowback for past Iranian activity, not the other way around.

We are the blowback.

[Dániel Boros]

At least you're honest about it.

Attacking Iran would result in innocent people dying.

That would lead to radicalism and terrorism...

in other words blowback...

and the circle of endless hate will continue.

[FeatherFall]

The idea that war only begets war is wrong. You don't eliminate the capability or will of an expansionist power to wage war by leaving it alone. Iran has proven itself to be a danger to the civilized world again and again for decades. Sticking your head in the sand is only the best option right now because every other candidate wants to take half-measures.

We are the blowback.

That's what I was trying to get at. Thanks for making the point succinctly. Thanks also for reminding everyone how truly terrible the USSR was. They allied with Germany to invade Poland and plunge the globe into armed conflict. Patton should have been allowed to crush them immediately after the surrender of Germany. People still suffer today because the Soviets were allowed to continue their expansionism for the better part of a century.

[thenelli01]

Matt, I agree that it's very important to guard against blowback in foreign policy, but I challenge your assertion that anti-Western sentiment was a result of blowback. It was clear that there were anti-Western elements in Iran prior to '53. Those elements precipitated Western intervention when they nationalized Western oil fields. They were damaging Western interests (and violating the rights of Western businessmen, indirectly harming anyone with whom those businessmen traded) prior to the first event that you think caused blowback. I don't see how this is arguable.

What do you think the proper response is when a country is involved in internal conflict, and one side of that conflict violates the rights of businesses from a second country? It seems to me there are three options. One is for the second nation to wage war against the first. Another is to have the second country try to resolve the first country's internal conflict a beneficial way (the option taken by the West in this case). The last is to have the government of the second country fail in its role as protector of the rights of its citizens (do nothing).

I disagree with your synonymous use of Western powers and U.S. in this circumstance because they should be categorized separately. Prior to 195, the US was very supportive of Iran and their nationalistic movements because we believed it barred them from adopting communism. During WW2, Russia and Brittain invaded Iran. And, the nationalists turned to the US for help and our country forced Britain and Russia to sign a treaty to leave. And even up to the late 1940s, we stood apart from Britain as were sympathetic to the Iranians that wanted to nationalize the oil. That relationship changed when Eisenhower took office. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you that there may have been anti-western sentiments but that was largely due to the Western Imperialism.

I don't support "Western Interests" because it wasn't Western interests, it was British interests.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Matt Giannelli

[thenelli01]

It was not an unjustified, irrational, emotional "Scare". In 1953 the Soviets had the largest and most capable land army in the world, an avowed goal of world domination, a crusading self-righteousness that the leading intellectuals in the western world granted was valid, and were actually occupying half of Europe. Vietnam, Cuba, the Prague Spring and Sputnik were all in the future.

We are the blowback.

I agree with you and you may have understood me. I am not understating the threat of the Soviet Union because they indeed did pose a serious, real threat. I am stating that there wasn't enough of a threat to go into Iran and stage a coup. A lot was propaganda that the British used to get us to do the dirty work. And the same propaganda is going on now.

Many historians agree with me as well.

"Throughout the crisis, the "communist danger" was more of a rhetorical device than a real issue—i.e. it was part of the cold-war discourse ...The Tudeh was no match for the armed tribes and the 129,000-man military. What is more, the British and Americans had enough inside information to be confident that the party had no plans to initiate armed insurrection. At the beginning of the crisis, when the Truman administration was under the impression a compromise was possible, Acheson had stressed the communist danger, and warned if Mosaddegh was not helped, the Tudeh would take over. The (British) Foreign Office had retorted that the Tudeh was no real threat. But, in August 1953, when the Foreign Office echoed the Eisenhower administration's claim that the Tudeh was about to take over, Acheson now retorted that there was no such communist danger. Acheson was honest enough to admit that the issue of the Tudeh was a smokescreen."

I am sure that you can find quotes that negate that and I am not trying to suggest that this makes what I am saying correct, but I am just trying to say that there are some facts and evidence to back it up.

As for "We are the blowback." that is an interesting perspective. But I would ask, why would US care if Iran nationalized oil as it didn't have a stake in it at the time?

[thenelli01]

Should correct myself again in the previous post ---> Meant to say "the threat didn't extend enough into Iran"

[Grames]

As for "We are the blowback." that is an interesting perspective. But I would ask, why would US care if Iran nationalized oil as it didn't have a stake in it at the time?

"We are the blowback" applies to the present, not 1953.

The CIA did stage the coup in Iran in 1953 effectively (as part of the "containment" strategy against the Soviet Union not mainly for the oil), but they were entirely ineffective at running or helping to Iran. The 1979 Iranian revolution was not just blowback from 1953, but revenge for 25 years of oppression and corruption. If Iran were a better place after 1953 than it was before the resentments of 1953 would have died down.

If the 1979 Iranian revolution had resulted in a civilized modern state instead of a wild-eyed theocracy which is the world's foremost state sponsor of terror since that year then they wouldn't be facing so much opposition today. No one really cares that South Africa has the bomb (comparatively), and if Iran's problems were on the scale of South Africa's no one would care about Iran either. The present attitude of the U.S. toward Iran is justified by Iran's recent and current behavior on the blowback theory. Iran has no justification to keep nursing along the America hate since 1979. Compared with American diplomatic relations with Vietnam today which was unified only in 1975, the Iranian situation is not natural or "to be expected".

[thenelli01]

"We are the blowback" applies to the present, not 1953.

The CIA did stage the coup in Iran in 1953 effectively (as part of the "containment" strategy against the Soviet Union not mainly for the oil), but they were entirely ineffective at running or helping to Iran. The 1979 Iranian revolution was not just blowback from 1953, but revenge for 25 years of oppression and corruption. If Iran were a better place after 1953 than it was before the resentments of 1953 would have died down.

If the 1979 Iranian revolution had resulted in a civilized modern state instead of a wild-eyed theocracy which is the world's foremost state sponsor of terror since that year then they wouldn't be facing so much opposition today. No one really cares that South Africa has the bomb (comparatively), and if Iran's problems were on the scale of South Africa's no one would care about Iran either. The present attitude of the U.S. toward Iran is justified by Iran's recent and current behavior on the blowback theory. Iran has no justification to keep nursing along the America hate since 1979. Compared with American diplomatic relations with Vietnam today which was unified only in 1975, the Iranian situation is not natural or "to be expected".

I agree with most of what you said and that is what I have been saying if you read my posts above in response to the assertion that nationalized oil gave the US justification to stage the coup. Yet I would argue that Soviet threat in Iran was hardly existent and the British used propaganda to get us to stage the coup and back the shah. Truman rejected the idea of a coup, but Eisenhower, who was elected because a majority of Americans thought Truman and congress weren't being tough enough on the Soviets, decided to support it.

I will disagree with the idea that "Iran has no justification to keep nursing along the America hate since 1979. Compared with American diplomatic relations with Vietnam today which was unified only in 1975, the Iranian situation is not natural or 'to be expected'."That suggests that the US has stopped intervening and trying to undermine their government. Directly following the 1979 revolution, the US aided Iraq against Iran in the war.

Here is a timeline of significant US involvement in the 1980-1988 war:

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]

November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran.

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support.

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons.

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925.

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons.

-----

I don't want to go through a history lesson, but fast forward the economic sanctions right now. It resulted in food shortages, medical shortages, and higher prices for the Iranians. Regardless of whether or not you think that the economic sanctions or any other actions we have taken prior to are justified, you don't think the anger was predictable?

Edited February 19, 2012 by Matt Giannelli

[Grames]

Yet I would argue that Soviet threat in Iran was hardly existent and the British used propaganda to get us to stage the coup and back the shah. Truman rejected the idea of a coup, but Eisenhower, who was elected because a majority of Americans thought Truman and congress weren't being tough enough on the Soviets, decided to support it.

Yes, it was no threat at the time. Like I said, the containment policy was the reason. Vietnam was no threat either, but containment applied.

Here is a timeline of significant US involvement in the 1980-1988 war:

All that, and Iran has better relations today with Iraq than the U.S. It was Iraq doing the actual killing and today Iraq is more of a U.S. client state than ever. Blowback theory is not compatible with this discrepancy.

I don't want to go through a history lesson, but fast forward the economic sanctions right now. It resulted in food shortages, medical shortages, and higher prices for the Iranians. Regardless of whether or not you think that the economic sanctions or any other actions we have taken prior to are justified, you don't think the anger was predictable?

Yes the anger was predictable. The sanctions were also predictable and have been a long time coming.

What else is predictable right now that has not happened yet?

[FeatherFall]

I disagree with your synonymous use of Western powers and U.S. in this circumstance because they should be categorized separately.

[...]

I don't support "Western Interests" because it wasn't Western interests, it was British interests.

1953 was just eight years after the conclusion of WWII. I bring this up because it helps to understand how important multi-national alliances were at the time. Sure, Britain had more of an interest in Iran than did the US, but the prior 15 years proved how unified those interests actually were. I also think "Western interests" is an apt phrase because it serves to identify which powers respected property rights. I won't defend every action the US took; US support of Ba'athists in Iraq was a horrible mistake, one that required two wars (and counting) to correct. But I also will not abide the white-washing of Iranian history.

[I Am JohnGalt]

You make very valid points, but there are several aspects of objectivist epistemology to consider here:

First, it is in our best interest to aid Israel. The Israeli people, although unfortunately deceived by Jewish mythology, are captains of industry and science. Our allegiance with them will greatly aid America's future.

Also, radical Muslims are racist and mystic barbarians who have never advanced psychologically or industrially past their original neanderthal state. They despise Israel for bringing wealth and industry to the Middle East. These mystics are collectively evil, and they are hindering America and her progression.

When it comes to other countries and issues, Paul is absolutely correct. Some countries that are receiving foreign aid have nothing to offer in return. Foreign aid in terms of military action is necessary, but all of these foreign aid policies that provide fucking Peru and Chile with federal tax dollars need to be eradicated immediately.

[Dániel Boros]

You make very valid points, but there are several aspects of objectivist epistemology to consider here:

First, it is in our best interest to aid Israel. The Israeli people, although unfortunately deceived by Jewish mythology, are captains of industry and science. Our allegiance with them will greatly aid America's future.

Why not give foreign aid to Germany than or Japan? Oh wait you do... you have soldiers there

By the way if you have to pay for every single war Israel should fight I'm not sure this alliance will worth it.

Also, radical Muslims are racist and mystic barbarians who have never advanced psychologically or industrially past their original neanderthal state. They despise Israel for bringing wealth and industry to the Middle East. These mystics are collectively evil, and they are hindering America and her progression.

Well they did at least conserve science long enough for the west to rediscover them. Other than that they did not do much.

[Nicky]

I didn't say it was all because we backed the shah but it is a huge reason.

It's the only reason you gave.

I will not vote for anyone who claims that because it shows their lack of understanding of history and blowback.

It has nothing to do with understanding. Everyone understands what you are saying. You aren't saying anything complicated, and we (or the people running for President) aren't retarded. We get it. You think the Iranian army and leadership's support for anti-American and anti-Israeli terror is caused by our backing of the shah. We understand. We just don't agree. It's a simplistic, concrete bound view of international affairs and human nature.

The Iranian leadership is a group of antisemitic, religious fundamentalist, militant Muslims who hate western values, especially liberty. All their actions, starting with their brutal oppression of their own people, to their support of Hezbollah, to their attempts to silence dissent all the way to London (does the name Salman Rushdie mean anything to you?) and Copenhagen, prove that.

Their ideology is fundamentally antithetical to ours. That is what is causing the conflict. Your simplistic concept of "blowback" doesn't explain why the Iranian regime behaves the way they are: it isn't causing them to murder thousands of their own population, to beat women on the street with sticks, to whip rape victims in public, to sponsor terror attacks against Jewish tourists or schoolchildren, or to bi-weekly declare the destruction of Israel as God's will.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Nicky

[FeatherFall]

To be fair to their position, Nicky, will you agree that a nation's failures will embolden its enemies? Specifically failures of this type: declaring that we're going to forcefully civilize a neighbor, having no capability or will to do so, and then actively engaging in that failure day after bloody day.

Edited February 21, 2012 by FeatherFall
clarity

[Nicky]

To be fair to their position, Nicky, will you agree that a nation's failures will embolden its enemies? Specifically failures of this type: declaring that we're going to forcefully civilize a neighbor, having no capability or will to do so, and then actively engaging in that failure day after bloody day.

There are three separate items in your post:

1. America's poor choice of goals (civilizing Afghanistan, rather than defeating the Taliban and eradicating Al-Qaeda).

2. Its inability to achieve its goals.

3. Its lack of will to use its capabilities to achieve its goals.

I'd say we have two goals: defeat the enemy and civilize it. And the only way to achieve the latter is to first achieve the former.

We do have the capability to achieve both, if we were to attempt them in the correct order. What we lack is the will. Or more specifically, the intellectual and moral clarity to fully understand what should be done.

As for what emboldens Iran, it's none of those things. They have even less of a concept of right goals, moral clarity, etc. than our leaders. Besides, that government doesn't strike me as something being lead by a strong thinker, good or evil. It's a pack of savages, reacting to basic stimuli, trying to outbid each other in fanaticism and hatred of the West (and of voices of reason within Iran). They're emboldened by general weakness, however it manifests itself: it's everything from our unwillingness to do what's necessary, to our willingness to waste resources where it isn't necessary.

However, we are still willing to act sometimes, and keep some of our resources available to do so. And that might even be enough, to deal with Iran. It is certainly better than what Ron Paul is proposing.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Nicky

[FeatherFall]

Nicky, you said Iran is, "emboldened by general weakness, however it manifests itself: it's everything from our unwillingness to do what's necessary, to our willingness to waste resources where it isn't necessary." That sounds like an affirmative answer to my question, with the single "we CAN civilize Afghanistan" caveat. But the beginning of your post seems to say the opposite. Care to clarify?

[Nicky]

Nicky, you said Iran is, "emboldened by general weakness, however it manifests itself: it's everything from our unwillingness to do what's necessary, to our willingness to waste resources where it isn't necessary." That sounds like an affirmative answer to my question, with the single "we CAN civilize Afghanistan" caveat.

There were a couple more caveats in there. I disagree that your statement

"declaring that we're going to forcefully civilize a neighbor, having no capability or will to do so, and then actively engaging in that failure day after bloody day."

accurately characterizes the situation.

The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other parts of the Middle East are not a total failure. More than that, the failures don't define the situation. We aren't winning, but we are certainly holding the line. Sometimes we're doing more than just holding the line, actually. The enemy is doing worse than we are, let's just put it that way.

Is that due to our superior firepower? Someone in the other Ron Paul thread already answered that: our superior firepower is due to our moral superiority. We are not all that great, and we are not winning decisively, but we are doing better because we are morally superior to the enemy. Until I hear Ron Paul say that, I will continue considering him a relativist, and in general a rambling idiot when it comes to international affairs.