Ron Paul's Moral Equivalence
Ron Paul
| June 24, 2007
| Tim
I do understand and somewhat sympathize with those who think the US shouldn't be overly involved in the rest of the world. I myself am somewhere between active interventionism and those who believe we should simply retreat to "Fortress America" -- so please understand, in the following paragraphs, that I'm not criticizing anyone simply because they support a non-interventionist position.
But there are rational and irrational arguments for any position. If a man advocates something I believe in, I'll gladly welcome his vote -- but if he announces that he holds that position because the extraterrestrials have instructed him to do so (via his toaster) -- well, again, I'm happy I have his vote, but there's no way I'd support him for office.
Not long ago, while researching something else, I was reading Ron Paul's various stances about the mideast, and came across this complaint of his, lodged in 2002. For context, here's a list of suicide bombings which were taking place at the time -- part of an ongoing intifada which followed Sharon's offer of a Palestinian state in 2000, and Arafat's refusal and walkout.
Ron Paul said:
There are many troubling aspects to this legislation. The legislation says that "the number of Israelis killed during that time [since September 2000] by suicide terrorist attacks alone, on a basis proportional to the United States population, is approximately 9,000, three times the number killed in the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001." This kind of numbers game with the innocent dead strikes me as terribly disrespectful and completely unhelpful.
It is, when speaking of the dead, the one-sidedness of this bill that is so unfortunate. How is it that the side that loses seven people to every one on the other side is portrayed as the sole aggressor and condemned as terrorist?
Dr. Paul is, frankly, a moral idiot. How does casualty rate answer a question about who is the aggressor or in the wrong? If A attacks B, and A loses 700 people and B loses only 100 does that prove A was morally right? In Ron Paul's world, the answer is apparently "yes". It is utterly impossible to conceive, apparently, that some group could be (as most convicted criminals are) both evil and ineffective.
Please also note, again, that Ron Paul is saying, in no uncertain terms, that Israel and Hamas should equally be considered "terrorist" (or not):
How is it that the side that loses seven people to every one on the other side is portrayed as the sole aggressor and condemned as terrorist?
Because, Dr. Paul, terrorism is defined as the deliberate targeting of unarmed, non-combatant civilians. One side does that, where the other takes great pains to try to avoid unnecessary casualties. (Do you know how horrifying it is, to me, that a man who needs this explained to him is the hero of many who are allegedly on the right?)
This is only made worse by the fact that Palestinian deaths are seen in the Arab world as being American-inspired, as it is our weapons that are being used against them.
I've been reading Ron Paul's writings lately, and I've seen this before: it's a classic example of blinkered Ron-Paul reasoning.
Yes, it's true: some in the Arab world call Israel the little Satan, and call the USA the Great Satan, and hate us because we've sold weapons to Israel. Yet many of these same people also insist that Jews sacrifice Christian children to make Passover Matzah, and believe we in the US are legitimate targets because we allow our women to walk around scantly clad. If we're going to take them seriously on one perception, why stop there? Answer: because Ron Paul will quote raving lunatics and take them seriously whenever it suits his political argument.
For those who are not yet satisified, here's another heaping dose of Ron Paul Cluelessness from later in his speech:
Many people of various religious backgrounds seem determined to portray what is happening in the Middle East as some kind of historic/religious struggle...
The mideast -- a historical/religious struggle? What an absurd portrayal! Good thing we have Ron Paul to set us straight!
... where one side is pre-ordained to triumph and destroy the other.
Err, what? Certainly many Muslims believe the final war will involve a war in which they triumph over the Jews. But I think he means that some believe the Jews are ordained to win. Yet, if so, who are these people? If he thinks that's what most Christians believe, he certainly doesn't know much about them.
Here's Ron alternative idea about why Hamas, for example, attacks Jews and has a charter which calls for Israel's complete destruction (underline added):
Far from a great holy war, the Middle East conflict is largely about what most wars are about: a struggle for land and resources in a part of the world where both are scarce. We must think and act rationally, with this fact clearly in mind.
Yup! That's it: Land and resources. Water rights and more room to grow crops, that's what it's all about. Which is why the attacks started when Sharon made a land-for-peace offer, and intensified greatly when Israel finally yielded every acre of settlement property in Gaza. There are, in fact, none who fight Israel because they believe it's a "holy war"! It's "far from" that in their minds!
What. A. Moron.
This man has no business advising a child how to open a pull-top soda can.
Thanks for the link and posting. I read the original and have come to a different conclusion. It is easy to understand how such a motion could undermine peace talks.
Ron Paul 2008!
Well, I guess that response undermines the idea that it is generally Ron Paul's detractors who are unthinking followers.
Anonymous: You might consider reading the article above. I don't criticize Ron Paul for being concerned about undermining peace talks. (I can entirely understand such a concern.) Nor am I saying he was wrong to oppose that particular piece of legislation (which the Bush administration also opposed).
My issue, again, was with the moral idiocy (and ignorance of motivations) so clearly displayed in the arguments he offered. I stated that up front.
But I guess that's a bit too nuanced an argument for those busy following their Great Leader no matter what, eh?
(But what do you expect from a Paul 2008 campaign flack who posts a half-baked response with a few minutes of the article going online?)
America's bias for Israel is well-known; Paul hardly needs to cite every instance of it to complain about bias in one piece of legislation.
Paul's statement on the causes of Arab-Israeli conflict are correct. What they hate is Zionism, not Judaism. There are jews living in Iran, and there have been for something close to 3,000 years. You don't hear about the Iranian president rounding up the jews in Iran and tossing them into death-camps like Hitler did, because he isn't quite that insane. Yes, Iranian jews are persecuted against, but so are all minority religions there. They have their own shrines and monuments, which are not blown up by suicide bombers.
Zionism is the idea of jews occupying the land of Israel. That is what the people of the middle east hate. We can only hope this hatred does not spill over into persecution of non-Zionist jews. However, I cannot help but not be surprised that Palestinians would get pissed off when a bunch of jews migrate onto their lands, then get their own country carved out for them by UN mandate.
"How does the casualty rate answer the question of who is the agressor in the wrong?"
That is just Ron Paul's point. If the proponents want to wave numbers, then what about these numbers?
On that point, you and Ron Paul are in agreement. Numbers do not say which is the aggressor.
The discernment of right and wrong is based on specific actions not on sides. This is where your argument is morally weak. You assume one side is right and the other wrong. Your position makes it impossible to critique individual events. It is clear that both sides have done some awful things. Paul stays away from the judgement of sides.
Some actions have negative consequencs. Some negative consequences have statements used to justify them. Should we then conclude that speaking out against those actions is the same as validating the statements. This is in error. This applies to your critique of Paul's statements that US involvement in the Middle East has negative consequences.
Paul seems to be knowledgeable about Christians. The idea of a religious conflict in which one side will win is strong in Christianity and Islam. There is nothing wrong in Paul's statement.
Paul used the word "largely" in regard to land and resources and then you paraphrase that to "none" fight Israel because they believe it is a holy war. This is disingenuous. I encourage you to debate based on ideas. The religious aspect plays a part, but is it as big a part as commonly suggested?
The application of war resources in the Middle East makes a strong argument for land and resources as being the key factor. Paul is not alone in this judgement. This is common in wars and it is reasonable to look to see whether that is true here. Even if he is wrong, how is that a moral issue? Or a reasoning issue?
I don't really have time to go through the whole thing right now, but let's start with this:
"terrorism is defined as the deliberate targeting of unarmed, non-combatant civilians. One side does that, where the other takes great pains to try to avoid unnecessary casualties."
If they're trying to avoid unnecessary casualties then they're obviously doing a piss poor job of it, otherwise they wouldn't be killing nearly as many people. This is like the US saying that it does everything it can. No it doesn't. It does what it can without risking its own troops. They could get civilian casualties to zero if they were willing to increase the number of soldiers they lost, but US soldiers are worth more to the US government than Iraqi civilians, so they don't. And I don't have a problem with that. But it is still a lie to say they do everything they can.
"Yes, it's true: some in the Arab world call Israel the little Satan, and call the USA the Great Satan, and hate us because we've sold weapons to Israel. Yet many of these same people also insist that Jews sacrifice Christian children to make Passover Matzah, and believe we in the US are legitimate targets because we allow our women to walk around scantly clad. If we're going to take them seriously on one perception, why stop there? Answer:"
Because it's a lot easier to recruit terrorists on the basis of "they're killing our brothers" than on the basis of "they wear different clothes"
"The mideast -- a historical/religious struggle? What an absurd portrayal! Good thing we have Ron Paul to set us straight!"
Why are you mocking him for stating facts? Were they too obvious for you? Don't forget, he was talking to Congress. They're pretty much fourth graders in $5000 suits.
Chris - Are you agreeing with Ron Paul's belief that the conflict in the mideast is not fundamentally a religious struggle? That "Far from a great holy war, the Middle East conflict is largely about what most wars are about: a struggle for land and resources in a part of the world where both are scarce?"
Granted, there are issues regarding land and water rights in Israel. But please consider; The Chinese have been fighting with the Muslim population of Xinjiang province ever since the independent state which existed there was conquered in 1759. But you don't get anywhere near the same level of reaction as you do with Israel.
Xinjiang is 1,660,000 kmē
Israel is 21,671 sq. km.
Officially, fewer than 40% of Xinjiang's 20 million people are Han Chinese. Still, that's a giant leap from 1949, when the Chinese made up 4%-5% of the population. The shift may be even more dramatic, says a Western diplomat in Beijing, perhaps 60%-65% Han, if you tally all the police and army troops.
All that military muscle is telling. Take two peoples who don't understand each other, plus the perception among locals that the newcomers are dominating the land and the economic development, and it is no surprise that a heavy security presence is on hand to control arguably China's most restive province.link
Xinjiang even has oil and natural gas.
So I'm curious, Chris, why you think the reaction of many sections of the Muslim world to Israel's simple existance has been so much stronger than China's activities in Xinjiang, given that Xinjiang province involves a much greater quantity of resources and a much larger Muslim population.
How long do you think it will be before the UN declares that China's policy against the XinJiang Uighurs is a form of racism?
Basically, let's just imagine (for grins) that a bunch of ... I dunno, Chechens ... say, 2M of 'em ... all migrate to the Eastern US and obtain a peace agreement with the UN that grants them the lands encompassing Delaware, part of Maryland, and the southern (nice) half of New Jersey. And half of DC.
Do you think those people would be mad? Do you think they would be justified?
Well, it's been a rather busy night! Welcome everyone! Even if I disagree with you, I welcome and am glad you could share your views.
G: America's bias for Israel is well-known; Paul hardly needs to cite every instance of it to complain about bias in one piece of legislation.
Is it "bias" to support a pluralistic liberal democracy in their clash against groups wanting a racist, religious dictatorship?
I consider bias to mean being unfair or dishonest in the application of one's alleged principles. From that point of usage, I don't see anything biased at all about our support for Israel -- any more than our support, say, of Poland against the USSR. True, we favored one. As we should have.
Paul's statement on the causes of Arab-Israeli conflict are correct. What they hate is Zionism, not Judaism.
Then why, in their own internal writings, do they constantly refer to "the Jews" rather than "the Zionist entity" -- which is just inserted into the translation? "The Protocols" is a huge seller -- but despite the title, it's not about people who want to live in Israel.
You don't hear about the Iranian president rounding up the jews in Iran and tossing them into death-camps like Hitler did, because he isn't quite that insane...
No, he's just insane enough to insist that never happened, while simultaneously working to acquire nukes, and opinining that Israel should be "wiped off the map."
And you seem not to know this.
I cannot help but not be surprised that Palestinians would get pissed off when a bunch of jews migrate onto their lands...
Since when is Israel, historically, the dwelling-place of Arabs? Are you not aware that Jews have lived in Israel since Rome (and before, obviously)? Are you aware that when Mark Twain visited Israel, he described it as being desolate place? Are you aware that the vast majority of "Palestinians" (such as Yassir Arafat) were, in fact, born -- or their parents were born -- in another region?
No, probably not.
So what's your take on illegal immigration in the US? (That should be interesting.) Are you saying you'd think it would be fine to go kill illegals for moving in? Because that's basicly what you're justifying here, even if we adopt your mistaken view of the region's history.
Tim: "How does the casualty rate answer the question of who is the agressor in the wrong?"
Thomas: That is just Ron Paul's point. If the proponents want to wave numbers, then what about these numbers? On that point, you and Ron Paul are in agreement. Numbers do not say which is the aggressor.
Beg to differ, but read the text: that's not at all Ron's point. He does *indeed* say that numbers determine who's the aggressor, and does so negatively. Read it again:
How is it that the side that loses seven people to every one on the other side is portrayed as the sole aggressor and condemned as terrorist?
He implies it's not sensible for the one with the larger number of casualties to be protrayed as the "sole aggressor" and "terrorist[s]" -- because the numbers imply otherwise.
There should be no linkage between the two, but he's clearly saying there is.
I hate to have to be elementary, but study how people use the phrase: "How is it that...?" They always do when they feel their final clause undermines the previous part.
"How is it that people who want smaller government can vote for Republicans?" "How is it that a bee can fly, when it seems aerodynamically impossible?" Ron Paul is using the same usage: he's implying the numbers tell us Israel must also be an "aggressor", and Palestine can't be the only "terrorist" involved here.
Geez. I hate having to explain basic language usage to people. But when a cherished political point is threatened, we can get pretty dense about things.
(Final note on this point: his opponents weren't using the numbers to show who was wrong, as you mistakenly assert. They were using it to demonstrate the magnitude of the threat to Israel, scaled in terms US population. They already assumed Israel was justified in defending itself.)
Paul seems to be knowledgeable about Christians. The idea of a religious conflict in which one side will win is strong in Christianity and Islam. There is nothing wrong in Paul's statement.
Really? Which side do Christians think is destined to win, as Paul (or you) see it?
Paul used the word "largely" in regard to land and resources and then you paraphrase that to "none" fight Israel because they believe it is a holy war. This is disingenuous.
No, you are right, but it's not disingenous: it's merely an error. Paul did say "largely" and thus I was wrong for saying "none". But he's still "largely" clueless, since Hamas and the PLO are not, and never were, "largely" motivated by the secular concerns he imputes to them.
Just a quick question to you, Thomas: What was Yassir Arafat's nationality? Where was he born? Did you know he was, in fact, an Egyptian? He's hardly alone in that regard.
The religious aspect plays a part, but is it as big a part as commonly suggested?
The ones "commonly" suggesting it are those actually involved in the fighting. You know, we can read their publications and websites and translate their broadcasts, so it's not the big mystery you're depicting there.
Chris: If they're trying to avoid unnecessary casualties then they're obviously doing a piss poor job of it, otherwise they wouldn't be killing nearly as many people.
I see I also need to explain basic warfare.
Chris: Let's say that there are two groups in combat. One, Group A, wears uniforms, rides around in tanks, and tries to keep away from civilian groups. Another, Group B, deliberately dresses in civilian clothing, stations their weapons in people's yards and even has groups of children stand in front of their weapons. They also kill their own people in firefights (such as the famous boy in the photo).
Me, I tend to think the people who behave as Group B does are immmoral, and largely responsible for the inevitable civilian casualties -- it betrays an attitude of utter unconcern, using their own people as cannon fodder like that.
You, apparently you don't know this or aren't disturbed by such behavior. Which prospect is worse, I have trouble deciding.
Tim: "The mideast -- a historical/religious struggle? What an absurd portrayal!"
Chris: Why are you mocking him for stating facts?
Chris, Ron Paul was mocking the idea that the mideast was a "historical/religious" struggle. You call it a "fact", but he downplays the notion. Your disagreement is apparently with him, not me.
bret - Chechens? It would be more honest to use a Hopi Indian tribe instead, since they've actually, ya know, had a presence in the US for some time. So lets say you get a bunch of Hopis moving back to Mesa Verde. It would probably upset some people. But I honestly can't imagine a US president saying that he wanted to exterminate the Hopis for doing that, launching numerous wars against them, and expending a huge portion of US national treasure to get them out of the park, whether the hopi tribe had foreign support or not. Personally, I would consider UN support mostly irrelevant to the issue. The main reason Russian reaction to Chechen rebels has been so strong has been because the place has oil. I've already tried to illustrate that desire for natural resources is not the primary issue in this case, based on mideast reactions to other conflicts. I can't imagine young Americans strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up Hopi busses. This analogy tends to illustrate how unusually strong mideastern reaction has been to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially compared to the mideast reaction to other disputes .
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« The Left is Wealthy - Who Knew? |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Mental Illness, Homelessness, and How Universities Make People Stupid »
|
Thanks for the link and posting. I read the original and have come to a different conclusion. It is easy to understand how such a motion could undermine peace talks.
Ron Paul 2008!
Posted by: on June 24, 2007 10:14 PM