Saturday, July 28, 2007

Ron Paul Gets an "F" on Darfur Report Card

Following up on an earlier post on this blog which quoted Ron Paul opposing the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act (2004), here, from, is Ron Paul's report card grading him on issues relating to Darfur. He received an "F".

read the report card at: Ron Paul | Darfur Scorecard


Anonymous said...

And an F on Iraq, too, because he didn't favor interventionism there, too?

Please explain, Adam.

Adam Holland said...

Rep. Paul has opposed virtually every bill designed to oppose the brutalization of Darfur by the regime in Sudan. What don't you understand about that?

Apparently you agree with Rep. Paul that almost anything that the U.S. does overseas, including assist those in the most dire straights, is somehow equivalent to "intervention" and to the war in Iraq.

But when you call what the U.S. has done in Darfur "intervention", you reveal your own bias. You would probably fight tooth and nail if I called your views isolationist. Why not be honest about his views and yours? Why aren't these views isolationist? Doesn't the genocide in Darfur do anything to make you rethink your ideology?

Dar said...

Historically, economic sanctions tend to hurt the people whom they are intended to help. They especially hurt the poor. They rarely are the true cause of action among the elite. They are the use of force against US peoples, for little benefit.

It is foolish to support plans that hurt and don't help, just to make us feel better.

When grading Ron Paul on Darfur, get the right report card, or you can be led astray.

Open the doors for traders, for missionaries, for protection units; don't close them. Help can only be direct and local. You cannot wave your hands with wishful thinking and get something done. And you especially cannot make progress based on the titles of certain bills.

Adam Holland said...

I agree that those doors should be open. The whole point is to tell SUDAN to open their doors to those who can help the citizens of Darfur, and to stop their genocidal policies there. Why don't you and Rep. Paul support even the meager actions the U.S. has taken to accomplish this thus far? Do you think that calling for U.N. intervention is intrinsically wrong, or for sanctions against Sudan? Why? And why shouldn't that be called isolationism?

For the sake of that misguided ideology, why should millions of innocent people suffer and die? It was asked of isolationists in the past, I ask it of Rep. Paul and his supporters now.

By the way, Rep. Paul claims that oil is the motivating factor among those who want more action on Darfur. In fact, oil is the main reason that stronger action has not been taken. The Chinese have used their influence, especially in the U.N., to limit actions against the tyrants of Sudan. Perhaps Rep. Paul should correct the record on this and retract his prior statement, made in a speech to Congress, condemning activism on Darfur as selfishly motivated.

Adam Holland said...

Where did Rep. Paul get an "F" on Iraq? I have no idea what you're referring to, so why not let me know where that happened and how that relates to this blog.

While you're explaining that, can you explain how opposition to the war in Iraq justifies denying assistance to the residents of Darfur? You and Rep. Paul define most U.S. actions overseas as "intervention" and equate them with the war. That makes you, and him, isolationists in the classic mold. With respect to Rep. Paul, too bad it's not just the bad logic of an armchair quarterback, it's the bad logic of someone with a vote in Congress and the ear of a vocal, if misguided, minority.

hotmeat said...


adamhollandblog [AT] gmail [DOT] com