Ron Paul's "Revolution"

Ron Paul. He is a man of many opinions, many of which I completely disagree with, but who is not afraid to truly express his biased and non-centralized thoughts. He does not appeal only to the median voter, but instead sticks to his ideals no matter their politically designated position.

Paul’s beliefs on national defense deviate from the typical politician’s frightened surrendering of any original thought for ones that will get them and keep them in office. Paul’s Web site uses this analogy to start the discussion on national security: “If you hit someone and kill their family, they will hate you and probably hit you back in the future.” Paul claims that this is the “blowback” concept, in which the things that the U.S. military does aboard certainly affect world opinions of America.

His Web site says: “Rudy Giuliani in particular believed that the 9/11 terrorists hated our wealth and freedom so intensely that they sacrificed their lives to prove it. (Of course, our government bombing their countries, propping up their dictators and supplying their enemies with money and weapons had nothing to do with it.)”

Finally! Finally a politician is willing to state a more substantial opinion towards war rather than the arbitrary meandering of Barack Obama's and John McCain’s mission statements on war, specifically in Iraq. Obama’s Web site says, “Obama and Biden will press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future.” McCain’s Web site says, “McCain will fight to ensure we do not squander the success that has been so hard won by America’s troops.”

First of all, how can the U.S. expect a country that they have been forcefully controlling to take responsibility for their future, when the U.S. took the initiative in the first place as the supreme enforcer of the world? It’s as if the U.S. is a wealthy aristocrat. That aristocrat takes in a sickly peasant from the street, dresses it in costly clothing. Then the aristocrat throws it back onto the street and yells “get a job!” That peasant may have lavish clothing, but is not structurally sound.

Second of all, what success is John McCain speaking of?

Paul states that the U.S. “unnecessarily puts the lives of our soldiers at risk” in aggressive wars that only feed the fires of terrorism instead of taming them. Paul does not stick to any Democratic or Republican ideal on his national security opinions, but acknowledges AMERICA’S issue with war.

Paul doesn’t just stick his finger up and the air to feel which way the wind is blowing and goes with it. He follows his convictions, despite how ridiculous some may seem, unlike many politicians in the U.S.