This time, from OneSTDV:
Why then does Dr. Paul rarely ever speak fondly of American tradition? Because libertarians, given their indiscriminate hatred of the state, refuse to intellectually acknowledge a nation and the attendant cultural trends within them. To libertarians, collective social movements do not exist as such a conception would undermine the notion of the radically autonomous individual. I support the free individual, but the libertarian ignores how individuals comprise society and believe that personal actions manifest in a vacuum. Paul cannot support his political positions by appeal to national heritage because to do so would imply that a national, cohesive unit even exists in the first place. And if a nation and national community exist, then one would presume top-down political policies would at least occasionally be justified, a concession at odds with anti-state libertarianism.
It is becoming readily apparent that One incapable of discussing Ron Paul in a logical manner. The assertion of American/national tradition is assumed but never proven. As has been discussed before, the concept of the nation of America/USA is fiction. The united states are a federation, not a nation. Nowhere in the constitution or in any of the founding fathers’ writings can the concept of a nation be found.
Additionally, the entire idea of a national community is inherently absurd given the geographic size and scope of the united states. There is simply too much regional cultural variance to describe national culture in any but the most vague and inclusive terms, terms that could potentially include the rest of western society.
And also from Karl Denninger:
When it comes to Iran there's a curious problem with Ron Paul's narrative that his supporters simply ignore. Paul says that Iran is just "misunderstood" and doesn't really want to wipe Israel off the map. Ok, let's assume I accept that "bad translations" are responsible for that "misunderstanding." What am I supposed to make of their repeated, vehement, and "in English" denial of the Holocaust? That's much harder to argue over, isn't it?
Let me get this straight: we should go to war with Iran because some Iranians deny the holocaust? Also, why should we be concerned about Israel? Can’t they take care of themselves?
Furthermore, as Pat Buchanan asked:
If Iran is an "existential threat" to Israel and intends to use a bomb it is now building on Israel, why have the Israelis, with 200 to 300 nuclear weapons, who have bombed both Iraqi and Syrian nuclear sites, not removed that "existential threat" themselves?
Frankly, this whole issue over Iran seems quite similar to the run up to the Iraq war. There are threats aplenty of a vague, but near-total disaster, accompanied by rather tenuous proof. If the united states does end up going to war, it would not be particularly shocking to learn that Iran had neither the intention or ability to develop nuclear weapons after all.
See also: Chuck's take on Ron Paul.