Posted by
Moonkeeper on Sunday, June 10, 2007 7:00:28 PM
Recently, Ron Paul created a stir when he suggested we understand the motives behind the terrorist attacks of 2001. The reason, he asserts, that we were attacked, was because we had been meddling in their affairs. Those in favor of meddling in Mideast affairs state that they hate us because of our freedoms, and that this is the only way to keep from a massive attack on the US in the future. They claim that a policy of nonintervention leads to despots, warlords, and tyrants attempting to take over the world. Let's examine.....
In 1953, we toppled the Iranian government and installed a western friendly shah, and everyone lived happily ever after......well, not really. Twenty-six years later, we had a hostage crisis, the government of Iran was overthrown, and has been run by one tyrant after another ever since.
In the late 60s, we decided to defend South Vietnam from North Vietnam. Our government instructed the South Vietnamese on how they were allowed to fight, which led to their defeat. Our actions also destabilized the region enough for Pol Pot to take over Cambodia, and kill 1.5 million of his own people.
When the above mentioned Iranian government came about, a war broke out between Iran and Iraq. In our inifinite wisdom, our policymakers decided to meddle again, and help out Saddam Hussein. The aid we gave him made it possible for him to invade kuwait. So we had to come in and stop Saddam, the same person we empowered.
During most of the 1980s, we aided Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in a war between Afghanistan and the Soviet Union. We later invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban from power. To this day we are still fighting Osama bin Laden.
So being interventionist has had its down sides. What about WW2? Surely there is justification for intervening if just stop future Hitlers. Yet, when WW1 ended, was Western Europe more concerned with moving on, or punishing Germany? Could their actions following WW1, demanding that Germany pay them more then was reasonably available in any country back then, possibly be considered non-interventionist? The resutling hyperinflation and economic collapse goes a long way towards understanding how a frustrated populace could turn to a charismatic tyrant promising German greatness once again.
So that leaves the idea of them hating us because of our culture......or because we're wealthy.....or because we're free.
To prove they hate our freedoms and our wealth, one need look no further then the massive terrorist attacks that took place in Costa Rica, Switzerland and Luxembourgh......which never happened. By any objective standard, the named countries are more free and wealthier then a majority of the coalition in the middle east right now. Yet the terrorists look towards the coalition when they want targets.
So how about some non-intervention?
I'll be voting for Ron Paul.