Have a hug. Read Atlas Shrugged.

Does Ron Paul trust dictatorships? Do you trust Ron Paul?

At the 19th Arab League Summit

In his December 7, 2005 speech – The Blame Game – before the US House of Representatives, Ron Paul said:

The Arab League needs to assume a lot more responsibility for the mess that our invasion [of Iraq] has caused. We need to get out of the way and let them solve their own problems.

The Arab League consists of 22 member states, including Palestine.

They are:

  1. Egypt
  2. Iraq
  3. Jordan
  4. Lebanon
  5. Saudi Arabia
  6. Syria
  7. Yemen
  8. Libya
  9. Sudan
  10. Morocco
  11. Tunisia
  12. Kuwait
  13. Algeria
  14. United Arab Emirates
  15. Bahrain
  16. Qatar
  17. Oman
  18. Mauritania
  19. Somalia
  20. Palestine
  21. Djibouti
  22. Comoros

How many of these are democratic? Which of these respect the rights of their own citizens?

Which of these would you trust to get anything politically just or moral done?

How many of these states have been involved in terrorism?

How many are wracked with anti-Israeli, anti-American, anti-Western Islamists, Jihadists, and sundry militants?

Now put them all together and let them nut out a collective, cooperative solution to Iraq. Or anything else for that matter. I mean one that doesn’t include plans to destroy Israel, enslave the Infidels, and expand their own borders.

And if the Arab League really is the key to solving the Iraq problem, I note that it was conceived of foreign interventionism, beginning life as a British idea and has been acutely shaped by various American and European influences over the years.

Ron Paul says the USA should “get out of the way.” Does he mean the Iraqis would do just fine without American assistance? That America is an obstacle to Iraqi progress? That the Iraqis really want America to leave?

I don’t think this accords with reality.

Report This Post


  1. steshaw

    Ron Paul generally makes a lot of sense to me. I’m not terribly familiar with American or Middle East politics though.

    Isn’t Paul just being a non-interventionist here?

    Report This Comment

    • PRODOS

      Good evening.

      Isn’t Paul just being a non-interventionist here?

      If he was “just” being that I wouldn’t mind as much. I’d still disagree, but I wouldn’t be truly appalled.

      Ron Paul is very explicitly advocating a very “interventionist” policy – not for America – but for a league of mainly dictatorships in Iraq.

      Does he care about the rights of Iraqis or of those who are oppressed within these Arab states?

      He may not wish to have the USA involved. But that’s different from trusting in the efficacy of thugs.

      Also, why does he choose “Arab” states? Why not countries like Iran? What about Israel?

      He’s not just saying that the USA should get OUT.

      He’s saying these Arab League thugs should get IN. He’s FOR that.

      Why doesn’t he advocate Constitutional Democracy and Limited Government for Iraq?

      Isn’t that a bit odd?

      Report This Comment

      • Steven Shaw

        Hi Prodos,

        I see what you are saying. Because he says to let the Arab League “solve their own problems”, you are saying that he advocates interventionism by the league against nearby nations. It’s possible he meant that each nation amongst the Arab league should solve their own problems (internally) but perhaps he did mean that they would need to fix the problem by intervention. It’s hard to be sure.

        However, why should the USA police the world. It seems that it really can’t afford to do so even if the USA always made the right moral judgement.

        Prodos, you seem to have a particular affinity to Israel. What’s that about? I’ve noticed that some American’s are like that but never knew why. Do you have a Jewish heritage?

        Report This Comment

Leave a Reply

© 2020 the PRODOS blog

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

Report This Blog