More Ron Paul @ Google

Here is the youtube video of Ron Paul's Google interview that Patri referred to below:

I thought Elliot Schrage did a fantastic job leading the discussion. He seemed familiar with libertarian arguments (even though he said the interview was an educational experience for him) and hit on the important highlights as pertaining to Paul's campaign. He even stepped in and gave what should've been Paul's answer to the woman who asked about pharmacists refusing to provide contraceptive pills while Paul seemed confused and tried the employer-employee contract angle, which I don't think would have satisfied the person asking the question. Paul should've just stated point blank, "In a free society, a woman would not need to obtain a prescription to buy pills."

Along with this hour-long interview, I've watched one presidential debate and a few talk-show appearances that involved Ron Paul. He isn't a natural public speaker. He has a tendency to ramble on beyond the scope of the question. The timing on some of his humor is off. Harry Browne was the best libertarian public speaker I ever saw. Still, Paul is much better than I remember him from a few years ago, or from his appearances in Congress berating Alan Greenspan. If he would slow down and be more relaxed, I think he'd make a much better impression.

I've also noticed that Paul himself never uses the word "libertarian". Others may use it, and he may go along with it, but he himself never utters it.

Lastly, I thought his answer about the action of the military in Afghanistan veered into loony-tunes territory (and not just the usual libertarian the-FDA-should-be-abolished loony-tunes territory). His overall stance on the Iraq War and military intervention in general will be a net positive among Republicans because he stands out among the pool of candidates, but no Republican is going to get elected president by claiming that the real reason behind Afghanistan was to build an oil pipeline.

And for all you Patri groupies out there, he makes his appearance at about the 40:00 mark. He's the handsome fellow with the big hair.

Share this

No Republican is going to

No Republican is going to get elected president by claiming that the real reason behind Afghanistan was to build an oil pipeline.

Probably not a popular opinion, granted. However, there is compelling evidence that this is true. I will conceed that no one wants to hear it.

You really believe that?

You honestly think the real reason behind the military action in Afghanistan was to build an oil pipeline?

Not because Bin Laden was there? Or the fact that the Taliban had come to power there? Or that 9/11 happened? It was all about the pipeline?

I know nothing about the

I know nothing about the subject, but I don't see why, a priori, it is hard to believe. For example, wasn't the ousting of Manual Noriega done because of concerns about the Panama Canal?

The Taliban were surely not the reason, since they were already in power. 9/11 was the temporally associated event, but it might have been the excuse rather than the reason.

A priori

A lot of things are, a priori, not hard to believe, especially if you know nothing about the subject. You name it. Face on mars. Hollow Earth. Rule by reptilian aliens. Perpetual motion machines.

Occam's razor

After the US mainland was attacked for the first time in US history and civilians killed, after a decade of more minor attacks by similar bad guys, the US govt sent an army to get said bad guys with massive support not just from the American population, but internationally too. I tend to take it at face value that the reason the US govt went to Afghanistan was the reason they stated: to get the bad guys.

Theorizing about oil-pipelines seems like trying to massively stretch the facts to fit a worldview.

Libertarian crank mode

Moreover, theorizing about oil pipelines is just the sort of thing that falls under the category "libertarian crank mode" that somebody was warning against just a little while ago.

Occam's razor as a

Occam's razor as a scientific principle doesnt apply in the sense that simple explanations are best in an absolute sense. The principle is a more a case for theoretical efficiency in that propositions should be as simple as can be, however, may very well be relatively complex.

Aside, i personally think its much more likely a culmination of things that influenced their decisions. One thing i'd like you to explain though is why the US has spent so much time and money on unsuccessful regime change in Afghanistan? All the while allowing Al Qaeda to escape to Pakistan, where they go about freely, while Pakistan is a nuclear armed military dictatorship?

I would describe their efforts against Taliban and Al Qaeda as minimal but efforts for regime change and influence of economic and social commanding heights as abundant.

More like 39:00 :). I was

More like 39:00 :).

I was trying to be polite about saying "you can't win" - hopefully I succeeded. I liked his answer to my question - what matters is winning young minds, not old politicians.


And I bet you think we went into Iraq to spread freedom and democracy? I guess the fact that Saddam had stopped selling Oil for the dollar didn't have anything to do with it? Did you know that Iran just stopped selling oil for the dollar too? Who have the neo-cons been calling to attack lately? Gee, what a coincidence.

Maybe you should do a "google" (haha how ironic) search for "caspian sea oil pipeline" or something like that. Maybe you should read about things before you form an opinion.

Oh well, I'm sure your vote will go to "America's" Mayor and the HERO! of 9/11!