Paying the Price for Ignoring Ron Paul-Type Foreign Policy
by Bill Sardi: Why
Are Kids So Sassy These Days? Bring Back Little House on the Prairie
in over 40
locations worldwide against the U.S. in the past week, America
should be re-evaluating its foreign policy.
appear dumbfounded. The UK
Guardian posts a headline report that reads: "US
media angrily marvels at the lack of Muslim gratitude."
article goes on to say: "One prominent strain shaping American
reaction to the protests in the Muslim world is bafflement, and
even anger, that those Muslims are not more grateful to the US…
Attacks in Libya that left four US diplomats dead – including Ambassador
Christopher Stevens – and a mob invasion of the US Embassy in Cairo,
in which the US flag was torn to shreds, have left many to wonder:
How can people the USA helped free from murderous dictators treat
it in such a way?"
But Glenn Greenwald,
the Guardian’s political commentator, says: "That it
was the US who freed Egyptians and ‘allowed them’ the right to protest would
undoubtedly come as a great surprise to many Egyptians. That is
the case even beyond the decades of arming, funding and general
support from the US for their hated dictator.
adds: "Beyond the long-term US support for Mubarak, Egyptians
would likely find it difficult to reconcile… the claim that the
US freed them with the ‘made
in USA’ logos on the tear gas canisters used against them
by Mubarak's security forces; or with Hillary
2009 declaration that "I really consider President and
Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family."
of 2012 Congressman Ron Paul said invasions against Iraq, and
efforts to overthrow Syria and Libya, are mistaken. Congressman
Paul said the overthrow of Arabic countries, characterized as civil
wars, like in Syria, "suggests setting up a new regime we hope
we can control."
Ron Paul also
noted Osama bin Laden’s goal was to bog down the U.S. in endless
wars in the Middle East. Can the U.S. ever activate an exit strategy
out of Afghanistan?
Ron Paul’s foreign policy stance has been lonely. Regarding the
Iranian Sanction Bill, only Ron Paul and ten other Congressmen
voted against it – 400 voted for it.
Ron Paul said
sanctions, like those against Iran, are actually an act of war.
He noted the U.S. has 700 military bases and a U.S. foreign policy
that has spent, over time, more than $1 trillion. The U.S. is broke
and it’s giving away borrowed money for foreign aid.
Ron Paul, speaking
before the Arab
American Institute in 2007, asked if 10 years of sanctions against
Iraq that caused children to die for lack of medicines and food,
built long-term friendship with Iraq? Paul suggests making Arabic
countries trading partners rather than invoking sanctions against
In the first
debate of the 2012 Presidential campaign, Congressman
Paul said the U.S. should stop sending money to other countries.
Just how much
money specifically goes to Arabic countries? A Politifact.com report
cites the following: seven of the top 11 recipients of U.S. foreign
aid in 2009 were Arab, Muslim or both: Afghanistan ($8.8 billion
in aid), Iraq ($2.3 billion), Egypt ($1.8 billion), Pakistan ($1.8
billion), Sudan ($1.2 billion), the Palestinian territories ($1
billion), and Jordan ($816 million). In addition, at least 30 other
countries that can be considered Arab or Muslim received U.S. aid,
including Somalia ($281 million), Morocco ($244 million) and Indonesia
writing in The
Guardian, says: "The maelstrom of anti-western violence
in the Arab world has little to do with an anti-Islam propaganda
film released on YouTube. It has more to do with decades of perceived
went on to say: "Barack
Obama's Arab honeymoon was squandered by drone attacks on Pakistan
and Yemen and his impotence over Israel."
Ron Paul has been ridiculed for his so-called isolationist foreign
policy stance. Sadly, war hawks prevailed over his voice of reason.
In the ramp
up to the 2012 Presidential campaign, Michael Scheuer, wrote this
in the May
3, 2012 issue of Foreign Policy magazine:
president, Paul's most valuable contribution to a prosperous and
secure American future might well lie in his application of a
non-interventionist foreign policy, following the wishes of George
Washington and the other founders.
… A President
Paul would infuse these principles into U.S. foreign policy and
produce a noninterventionist doctrine: far fewer unnecessary and
costly wars, far fewer dead soldiers, and far greater U.S. national
security. This is a workable, adult approach to the world – especially
the Muslim world – unlike the adolescent approach America's bipartisan
governing elite has hewed to for decades.
… A Ron Paul
presidency would reverse a half-century of Republican and Democratic
leaders maintaining national security policies that lethally push
Muslims, premised on the delusion they will not push back. President
Paul would replace the interventionism of these men and women
– who are merely mis-educated, not evil – with the founders' guidance,
the Schoolyard Rule, and a belief that the federal government
is an engine of national destruction and bankruptcy. For President
Paul, the protection of the United States' genuine interests by
avoiding unnecessary wars and frivolous interventions is first,
last, and always the main foreign-policy priority of the U.S.
him mail] is a frequent writer on health and political
topics. His health writings can be found at www.naturalhealthlibrarian.com.
latest book is Downsizing
© 2012 Bill Sardi Word of Knowledge Agency, San Dimas, California.
This article has been written exclusively for www.LewRockwell.com
and other parties who wish to refer to it should link rather than
post at other URLs.
Best of Bill Sardi