While I am ashamed to be linking to anything to do with Fox News, I found this article about Ron Paul's position on the operation that killed Osama Bin Laden pretty interesting. While Ron Paul has many opinions I down right disagree with, I admire his position on international relations. Ron Paul is a proponent of something called 'non-interventionism' which basically is an approach to international relations where everyone minds there own fucking business. Well, that isn't completely true. Non-interventionists believe in trade agreements but oppose any type of military conflict that is not in self-defense. Anyways, Dr. Paul pointed out something I've been saying from the begging of this 'We Got Osama' victory parade. He asks, "What if he had been in a hotel in London?" He concludes things would have been handled much differently, and he is of course correct. I don't see the U.S. shitting on France to get Roman Polanski, so what makes it okay to shit on Pakistan to get Osama Bin Laden? How severe does a crime have to be in order to necessitate military intervention. Now you may be quick to point out that London and Islamabad are very different places. However, the U.K. and Pakistan are both allies of the U.S., so why should the U.S. stomp on Pakistani Sovereignty like it's a piece of dirt? Are they harboring a terrorist? Maybe. Maybe not. But was getting Osama worth pissing off a country that already dislikes the U.S. and is packing over a hundred nuclear weapons? I think not.
Do you think differently?
