0 votes

Another WSJ Hack Job

Today's WSJ features an editorial by Bret Stephens distorting Ron Paul's foreign policy views. I think a flood of letters to the editor is in order.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

My Response

Here is what I emailed the worthless writer if you guys are interested:
In regards on this statement:
It was precisely out of a desire to "trade with everybody" that the early American republic was forced to build a navy, and then to go to war, to defend its commercial interests, a pattern that held true in World War I and the Persian Gulf "Tanker War" of the 1980s.

The suggestion that if we want to trade with everyone, it would have to include people who do not want to trade with us is preposterous, which is exactly the implication here. There would not be a need to build a navy to force trade if we do not trade with people who do not want trade. Obviously, if you learned anything in economics, the lack of trade for those goods would cause the price to go up, and there will certainly be people who will obtain those items for the willing buyers. Ownership of foreign interests also consists of risks, and it is normally in the interest of investors to consider the risk/reward of where the investments go. The problem is not the desire to trade with everybody that cause the need to build a navy, rather it’s the fact that we go to war to bailout bad investments from the very influential but poor investors.

In regards to:

In the same way, trade between nations is only possible in the absence of robbers, pirates and other rogues.

Are you somehow suggesting that the terrorists are committing suicide because they want to steal a percentage of the trade that is occurring? I see no real point of this digression, especially since no one suggested the removal of military force since Ron Paul strongly believes in the protection of private property, and that would include protection from robbers and pirates. So no real problems exist for the flourishing of trade. If you want to make an argument such as this, a robust proof would mean you must state your assumptions, and here I suppose you are assuming that we would no longer have any enforcement if we have trade, and I have yet to hear anyone make such a ridiculous assumption. Forget what you believe libertarians want to do, if you heard Ron Paul made the statement, I would like you to find it.

In regards to:

Nobody can say what, precisely, the cost would be of U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East or, for that matter, disengagement from rest of the world. But John McCain was on to something when he quipped, in reply to Dr. Paul, that the only items al Qaeda likes to trade in are burqas, and that they only fly on one-way tickets.

This must be one of the most ignorant statements on your opinion piece. I guess your failure to acknowledge the reasons why al Qaeda attacks us, as stated by them, would somehow draw you to think what McCain said was onto something. I guess we can’t say what would happen to the U.S. if we weren’t there, even though al Qaeda attacked us because we were there. Yes, it is truly a mystery to you and John McCain. I suppose if they just wanted to attack us because we weren’t trading with their terrorist organization. I guess somehow when Ron Paul talks about trade with nations, it’s hard not to imagine that terrorist groups might want to trade too. Yes, McCain must be on to something, or on something.

In regards to:

Mankind is not comprised solely of profit- and pleasure-seekers; the quest for prestige and dominance and an instinct for nihilism are also inscribed in human nature, nowhere more so than in the Middle East. Libertarianism makes no accounting for this. It assumes the relatively tame aspirations of modern American life are a baseline for human nature, not an achievement of civilization.

You should learn a bit about biology, then maybe you can understand human nature and why your statement is ignorant. Also, your assumption of the libertarian assumptions and based those assumptions to fix it to Ron Paul's views must seemed really smart to you doesn't it? Another note, you should further elaborate what achievement of civilizations are, and what are the relatively tame aspirations of modern American life. I guess our relatively tame aspirations to explore space and look for future colonization sports to ensure the species survival for the foreseeable future is indeed an indication of our shortcomings as a civilization, but I don't see it that way, maybe you have greater aspirations than me.

What I see throughout your opinion piece is your ignorance of reality, and I guess the downfall of WSJ begins as people trying to move up the ladder deviates from good journalism to opinion pieces that would please the ever so American, or Australian American, owner in his quests to reshape America.

Here is an interesting

Here is an interesting background of the writer of the article:

Bret Stephens is a writer and news commentator for the Wall Street Journal. He was editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post in 2002-2004.

found it on wikipedia, the source is from WSJ writer bio.

Ummmm... who was it that

Ummmm... who was it that just purchased the WSJ from the Bancroft family ? Oh right... the Aussie dude who just purchased his American citizenship so he could purchase the WSJ from the Bancroft family... fair and balanced and all that...

Here Is The Article

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120036562308490333.html

Ron Paul and Foreign Policy
January 15, 2008

Ron Paul invited the audience at last Thursday's Republican debate to entertain the notion that the Middle East would be a better place with the U.S. out of the picture.

"It's time that we come to the point where we believe the world can solve some of their problems without us," said the Texas congressman, who has raised a mountain of cash on the strength of such views. As President Bush completes his swing through the region, it's a thought worth considering.
[Ron Paul]

Dr. Paul is a libertarian, and a libertarian's core belief is that a person's pursuit of happiness is, or ought to be, his own affair. Up to a point, most of us are probably sympathetic to that argument. But is it true of all people? And is what's true of some or all people also true of countries? The libertarian conceit -- which now extends well beyond Dr. Paul's cult-like following -- is that it is.

My reply on a local forum

Thank you for posting this. It's a nice history lesson.

I'd like to point out one thing that this writer failed to include in the article when discussing the most recent debate from which he has gleaned some of his recent comments.

There was discussion concerning the Iran Fast Boat fiasco and all of the candidates on that stage insisted that this event shows Iran is still a threat and that we should begin drawing up plans to "show them the gates of hell" per Mike Huckabee, or paraphrasing - "introduce them to those virgins they're so anxious to meet" per Fred Thompson. The writer fails to point out that Ron Paul says that he would "exercise more caution" than the other candidates.

Then, yesterday afternoon, we discover that the images and audio were quite possibly a hoax. (linked to yahoo story of prankster)
This article points out about the "prankster" that "Sailors in the Persian Gulf have known him for years." Now, that being the case, perhaps our news media should have checked out this story before attempting to instigate World War III at worst, or at best instilling fear in the American public.

I definitely appreciate this article, but I think it needed a little more information to be complete.

Iran Fast Boats

I just started reading a 2002 copyrighted book of commentaries called "Dreaming War" by Gore Vidal. The first half of the book is an indictment of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and interestingly enough, "blowback" is mentioned. Also, there is a commentary indicating that the plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities goes back at least that far. Very sobering read.

WSJ is owned by NewsCorp (Faux News)

I may be a vegetarian, but I'll defend to the death my right to eat pork!

I may be a vegetarian, but I'll defend to the death my right to eat meat!

Link

Link?

Mathew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

WSJ Link

I believe the WSJ Online is by subscription only. I get the print edition, so don't have a link. Sorry.