45 replies to this topic

[TyGuy]

So, as I kinda like Ron Paul (heretoafter referred to as RP) I am not convinced on his foreign policy stance.

He seems a little too dovish to me. Not wanting to take out Osama Bin Laden, no wanting to stop Iran from getting nukes, etc....

Now I get his point that if we stopped mucking around in other countries they might leave us alone. That's possible, they MIGHT. Then again they might hate us so much that they would want to destroy us anyway.

I am not one to just wait and see what Iran will do when the get nukes. I'd rather stop them first, or gently persuade Israel to do it for us.

*******

I'm on board with many of his other points, but his isolationism frightens me. Am I off base? Did I miss-interpret his words? Please tell me.

Also, please keep the discussion civil. Treating me, or anyone else, like an idiot for not loving RP is not the way to convince people. I've asked this question elsewhere, and I'll say that the response was more of an attack than a persuassion. You catch more flies with honey....

Thanks, Ty dog out!

[Hossua]

This is a pretty good video on his foreign policy as it applies to Israel.Ron Paul Interview w/ Jack Hunter I don't know anything about the interviewer, but it's a pretty good watch in my opinion.

Ron Paul's Plan To Restore America Also a good watch he doesn't start talking till after about 10 minutes into the video so just skip ahead.

Edit to point out that those are both paid for by his campaign FWIW.

Edited by Hossua, 15 December 2011 - 12:12 PM.

[mstrat]

Quote

I'd rather stop them first, or gently persuade Israel to do it for us

That tiny little statement is quite loaded.
Stop them how? At what cost? Where is the line drawn regarding acceptable costs, and who draws it? And why us, as opposed to other concerned nations?

Just some food for thought - not really addressing your actual question.

[Hossua]

mstrat, on 15 December 2011 - 12:13 PM, said:

Quote

I'd rather stop them first, or gently persuade Israel to do it for us

That tiny little statement is quite loaded.
Stop them how? At what cost? Where is the line drawn regarding acceptable costs, and who draws it? And why us, as opposed to other concerned nations?

Just some food for thought - not really addressing your actual question.

Israel should do it for themselves,  maybe even get some of the other countries threatened by Iran to help.
It's not really our fight, but I know a lot of people think it is.

[lockman]

If Isolationism means not sticking your nose in every countries affairs or not being the worlds policeman for local conflicts, I am all for it.

I believe Ron Paul would be an ultimate free-trader, how is that isolationism?

[Hossua]

lockman, on 15 December 2011 - 01:01 PM, said:

If Isolationism means not sticking your nose in every countries affairs or not being the worlds policeman for local conflicts, I am all for it.

I believe Ron Paul would be an ultimate free-trader, how is that isolationism?

I'm with you, I believe RP describes himself as a non-interventionist.

[pyre400]

lockman, on 15 December 2011 - 01:01 PM, said:

If Isolationism means not sticking your nose in every countries affairs or not being the worlds policeman for local conflicts, I am all for it.

I believe Ron Paul would be an ultimate free-trader, how is that isolationism?

Fantastic distinction, lockman. Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. Much of what you see in the MSM are deliberate attempts to use such loaded language. (we, as gun owner's rights activists see this all the time) "Non-interventionist" is really the appropriate term to use. An isolationist is something totally different (see smoot-hawley - Ron Paul is the exact opposite)

The 2 videos provided earlier are good videos.

In order to really appreciate Ron Paul's foreign policy one needs to really understand:
1. The president is not intended to be a dictator, or king. Ron Paul would not make unilateral decisions regarding "preemptive wars"
2. The congress can still declare war on Iran, if Iran is such a threat. That has ALWAYS been the case. They could do it today if they wanted to. That is what our founding fathers intended.
3. The media loves to play on 911 - educate yourself on "blowback". Its a CIA term that describes the unintended consequences of covert operations. Where people see the effect, but not the cause.

A 13 min video that does a fair job going over where Ron Paul is coming from re: foreign policy.


To give perspective, this is a very powerful video. Its created using one of Ron Paul's 'Texas Straight Talk' messages. Its dramatized, but those are Ron Paul's words. Try to see it through to the end (its 3 minutes).


Hope this helps - if you find it compelling, please spread the word.

[RandyP]

Dr Paul has MANY fans and followers and at least as many who feel that the very best reason to vote for him is to insure an Obama win. And certainly there are a large number of Americans who would be delighted for President Obama to garner a second term.

It will indeed be interesting to see how all the primaries pan out and which candidate emerges victorious on the Republican side and then just how many 'can't wins' become 3rd Party candidates.

Edited by RandyP, 15 December 2011 - 02:30 PM.

[TyGuy]

I like that 2nd video that pyre posted.  Hmmm, good food for thought.

[Bud]

Why do you think you will ever get a chance?

[GarandFan]

Why should you vote for Ron Paul?

Because in Illinois, it doesn't matter ... Illinois' electoral votes will go to Obama, no matter who you vote for.

Now if you lived in a true swing state ... then you'd have to seriously ponder whether voting for Paul was a wise decision.

[oneshot]

I would hope that we've learned that it's not as simple as "they shouldn't have a nuke".  What are you going to do about it?  Iraq supposedly had WMD's, we haven't proven that Iran is developing weapons capable nuclear technology and we know they don't have a delivery system capable of reaching beyond a thousand miles or so and it's going to take a whole lot more development to build a suitcase bomb.  So let's say they do, what military action are we going to take?  What will be the end result?  Iraq has taught us a big lesson, the question is whether we can learn from it.  What did we achieve?  Saddam Hussein was deposed, tried and hanged; congratulations.  What is the aftermath?  They have little vignettes on the news about how troops have done things to help people, but how long will those improvements last? We've laid the foundation for democracy, but what does that mean?  It means that the majority of people there will have their will imposed on the minority of people, the majority of people are Shiite.  I knew when our tanks rolled across the border eight years ago, even before I knew anything about libertarianism, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, any of 'em, I knew it was a bad idea.  They have a neighbor to the north, Iran, that is Shiite majority and wanted to take over Iraq back in the 80's, we did the job for them.

For example.
My link


Bombs and bullets will only do so much, you still have to deal with the people on the ground, the people who live there.  Democracy isn't anything for us to celebrate if they have a religious ideology that runs against the values of freedom and equality of all men and women.  I guarantee you that this is not the predominant value among those in Iraq, Iran and all the nations of the Arab Spring.  Sure, people should be free to do what they want, but if we know that a country isn't going to change their hearts and love America, why shed American blood and burn American money (that we borrow from the Chinese - we didn't pay for the Iraq war...yet) to free a people who hate us?  I know a lot of Iranian and Iraqi people are good people who love Americans, but not all of them, not the voting majority.

To continue the matter about geography, they also have a Sunni country to the south that you may have heard of, Saudi Arabia?  What happens when you have two big Shiite, oil wealthy countries (who the Chinese and Russians will buy from if we don't) right next door to our US friendly Sunni nation?  It's a more unstable situation than we had before, what happens if we whip the bee hive more?  What happens if war erupts with two Shiite nations next door to our Sunni friends?  Might someone make it an excuse to invade those whom they hate?  This is what Ron Paul has referred to again and again as "blow back", the law of unintended consequences, it's happened each and every single time the US has interfered with another nations interests.  The Iran we have today is a result of us installing the Shah 50+ years ago.  If we hadn't meddled in their affairs, it wouldn't have built the anger and resentment that created the Islamic Revolution.  If we're afraid of Iran it's OUR FAULT.  Stop screwing with other countries, there are consequences!  The thing is that the Republican hawks who have voices in the media squeltch that last part of the message and only let people hear the "Stop screwing with other countries!" and make him out to sound like a neutered pansy.  But he's not, he's all about self-defense!  In fact, of all the candidates for president, or W, or Cheney, any of those guys who say we should go to war, Ron Paul is the only one who served!  And voluntarily!!!  They're all hypocrites!  They want to send your kids to die, not theirs.  For their interests.  That's why you should vote for Ron Paul.

[belercous]

Ron Paul doesn't have a chinaman's chance of winning, and never has. Vote for Newt, he's the front-runner now, he's got momentum. Anyone but Romney.

Everybody (excepting Ron Paul) in the GOP race is a hypocrite, but Ron's going nowhere (as he always has, bless him), and only a hypocrite can win in `12 (that's all there is on offer). Newt's less of a hypocrite than Mitt, but Newt's not a pretty-boy, and is a level smarter than Romney.

It would throw the Dems a curve to have Newt facing Obama. The Dems have been preparing to run against Romney. It would really change the game if Obama had to face Gingrich. Time for the NewtBomb. Let Ron Paul be Trump's V.P.

[oneshot]

GarandFan, on 15 December 2011 - 04:07 PM, said:

Why should you vote for Ron Paul?

Because in Illinois, it doesn't matter ... Illinois' electoral votes will go to Obama, no matter who you vote for.

Now if you lived in a true swing state ... then you'd have to seriously ponder whether voting for Paul was a wise decision.

Voting's easy, so it's not a big deal.  Putting effort into contributing financially and helping out with the campaign is much more useful and commendable!  They're still asking for people to help on the ground in Iowa, I'm probably going up during my weeklong Christmas break!

[oneshot]

By the way, I wanted to qualify that I'm an honorably discharged veteran of the US Marine Corps, 1994-1998.    I don't like to wear it on my sleeve all the time, but I thought it was appropriate to this discussion to qualify that I'm not a complete pacifist and that I have a little experience from the inside where military matters are concerned.

[oneshot]

I'm really tired of the "he'll never win" talk.  Who cares?  That's why this is the nomination segment.  Put your all into the candidate you love and see what happens on the other side, otherwise, the really good candidate will never win.  Gingrich is no better than Romney in my book, in some ways he's worse.  As far as I'm concerned, they're all puppets of the corporate/banking/statist goliath that's ripping us off and putting us under their boots anyway.

[belercous]

Oneshot: I'm not against you or nothing, but Ron Paul isn't ever gonna win anything in a national election. His track record proves that. Mr. Paul has a solid constituency, but it's small. Who cares? Perhaps the GOP does.

As for the other candidates being puppets of the corporate/banking/statist Goliath, well, they all are. That's how they got to be where they are. Campaign funds aren't dug like potatoes. The same thing applies for the "New" Democrats, such as Clinton, Gore, Kerry & Obama.

This is due to our system of "free-market" governance. If one wants a particular law passed, all one has to do is pay for it. Very democratic system, the more money one spends, the louder their voice is. SCOTUS said as much in Citizens United, $ = speech. If one's favored laws are noth getting enacted, obviously that person's voice isn't being heard. Simple fix; just add $.

How this relates to the O.P.; Ron Paul isn't swayed by the opinion of the week, nor by campaign finance cash. Corporations won't donate to Ron Paul since he won't cater to their wishes. As such, coporations won't give $ to Mr. Paul & Ron Paul won't have much $ to have his voice heard: Ergo; Ron Paul hasn't a prayer to get elected. That's the syllogism. Disprove either of the two explicit (or the two implict) premises and the logic fails. Even if the logic is proven defective, such doesn't mean that Ron Paul could be nationally electable. I'd like to be wrong about Mr. Paul's chances, but I try to deal with reality.

I also thank you for your service, it obviously wasn't done for $.

Please allow us to differ on the small stuff. I'd really prefer Ron Paul to face Obama in `12, but failing that, I'd prefer Obama to face Gingrich. Romney could make for a race, but he'd still lose in the end. Obama's biggest worry is the EU crashing between now & Nov. `12. That would hurt his reelection chances more than anything happening domestically.

Then again, I could be wrong. One time I thought I was wrong, but it turned out I was mistaken.

[GarandFan]

belercous, on 16 December 2011 - 01:36 AM, said:

Then again, I could be wrong. One time I thought I was wrong, but it turned out I was mistaken.

You're a funny guy, belercous.  Although I am sure it's unintentional, sometimes you come across as quite magniloquent.

[Bud]

GarandFan, on 16 December 2011 - 07:18 AM, said:

You're a funny guy, belercous.  Although I am sure it's unintentional, sometimes you come across as quite magniloquent.

THREAD WINNER!

[TyGuy]

I do think RP has a chance of beating the President, IF he gets the Republican nomination.

I will not support a 3rd party, as I don't want to Perot this election.

Again, if my father, a STAUNCH democrat all his life - union President, drove around senators at the 68 convention, etc.... etc..... voted for McCain last time and has said that he will vote for RP this time then I believe that RP can win.  If he gets the nomination then he'll get the third that are Republicans.  As I already pointed out he has the ability to pick up the moderates, i.e. my pops.  Therefore he could win.  

Anyway, I don't have all the answers on how to deal with Iran, but I know that if I were in a street fight and the other guy started to bend down to pick up a pistol from the ground that I am not going to wait until he obtains it, points it at me, and shoots me before I neutralize the threat.  Similarily I don't want the US to wait to be nuked by an enemey calling for our destruction before we confront them.  Lift sanctions, try to do it diplomatically, but make it clear that we will not wait to be attacked to secure our lives.  Perhaps you disagree?  Perhaps you follow the ideas of the Commander from Top Gun, don't fire unless fired upon.  That sounds nice, but it usually results in dying.  I don't want to die for my country, I want to make the other poor bastard die for his.  JK, but I can't resisit a good Patton quote.

[pyre400]

TyGuy, on 16 December 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:

Anyway, I don't have all the answers on how to deal with Iran, but I know that if I were in a street fight and the other guy started to bend down to pick up a pistol from the ground that I am not going to wait until he obtains it, points it at me, and shoots me before I neutralize the threat. Similarily I don't want the US to wait to be nuked by an enemey calling for our destruction before we confront them. Lift sanctions, try to do it diplomatically, but make it clear that we will not wait to be attacked to secure our lives. Perhaps you disagree? Perhaps you follow the ideas of the Commander from Top Gun, don't fire unless fired upon. That sounds nice, but it usually results in dying. I don't want to die for my country, I want to make the other poor bastard die for his. JK, but I can't resisit a good Patton quote.

Good post, and its true. Ron Paul has the support of the moderates and independents - most of those types have had enough of the establishment. Ron Paul appeals to those types.

The Iran/foreign policy thing is something that many establishment republican types have issues with. There is a fear, but it is not based on any sound data. Its based on echos from the establishment. If one wishes to be informed, they can find information on the topic via google, or even youtube. Sure, you cant believe everything you read/watch, but that's just my point. Go out and do your own research - its never been easier, in this age of information.

For what its worth, this concern about Ron's foreign policy is pretty much moot... What people should be concerned about is how we are bankrupt, and no longer have any money to continue the current foreign/defense policy. Yes, its true. We are broke, and the economy has grown a tolerance to the FEDs desperate attempts to influence things otherwise. So the FED will continue to "print" until we achieve total collapse if we dont quit spending. People dont have to be paying too much attention to know this much... We cant freak'n afford the 7-9 conflicts (undeclared wars) we're involved in now, let alone one more full scale nation building attempt.

Also, as I said before, even if Ron Paul wanted America to be some sort of martyr for peace (which is absolutely not the case), congress still maintains the constitutional authority to wage war on countries like Iran.

[Sigma]

i actually agree with belercous for once

[TyGuy]

Dying in a nuclear blast or from hunger because the dollar is worthless both don't appeal to me.

I do think he's smart enough that if any country stood poised to destroy us he would get into gear.  I doubt he would watch America burn to the ground.  How much he'll focus on surveillance, etc... is questionable, but I don't think he'll just stand there when push comes to shove.

[Tvandermyde]

After his performance last night in the debate, his FP stances are non-starters. He is the same as those who blamed US for causing 911.

While I think his pro-contitutional stances are to be commended, he is in no way ready to be president. It's not a isolationist position, it looks more like a cum-by-ya attitude. Well, Jesus said turn the other sheek, but he was a carpenter. I'm an operator. I say turn it to glass, ship over some buffalo and let 'em start over if they think, hint or joke at launching a nuke our way.

However, I think he would be great and give a lot of people fits as Sec of Treasury or head of the FED.

Right now, RP votes in other states do nothing other than give Mitt a leg up as they hope to delute the conservative vote.

I will be ABO in the fall. But I'll vote for a guy I think can win and bring to Obama in the fall.

[Hossua]

Tvandermyde, on 16 December 2011 - 06:25 PM, said:

After his performance last night in the debate, his FP stances are non-starters. He is the same as those who blamed US for causing 911.

While I think his pro-contitutional stances are to be commended, he is in no way ready to be president. It's not a isolationist position, it looks more like a cum-by-ya attitude. Well, Jesus said turn the other sheek, but he was a carpenter. I'm an operator. I say turn it to glass, ship over some buffalo and let 'em start over if they think, hint or joke at launching a nuke our way.

However, I think he would be great and give a lot of people fits as Sec of Treasury or head of the FED.

Right now, RP votes in other states do nothing other than give Mitt a leg up as they hope to delute the conservative vote.

I will be ABO in the fall. But I'll vote for a guy I think can win and bring to Obama in the fall.

I would find it hard to believe that our own actions over the years had nothing to do with 911. Obviously those who did it are ultimately the only ones responsible for those actions, and two wrongs don't make a right. But, come on, there WAS a reason.

[Chiburbian]

Tvandermyde, on 16 December 2011 - 06:25 PM, said:

While I think his pro-contitutional stances are to be commended, he is in no way ready to be president. It's not a isolationist position, it looks more like a cum-by-ya attitude. Well, Jesus said turn the other sheek, but he was a carpenter. I'm an operator. I say turn it to glass, ship over some buffalo and let 'em start over if they think, hint or joke at launching a nuke our way.

"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran?" - John McCain

That is a joke about bombing Iran.  Does that justify them launching a military strike against us?

Ok, so its not a guy in power, but I personally have a little higher "turn to glass" threshold than you do I guess.

My "Turn to glass" threshold is when they actually launch any strike against us.  I don't mean by proxy, I don't mean one of their citizens sneaks something to our shores, and I don't mean against our "interests" which can mean any number of things - I mean when they as a state launch a military operation against us.

So on to the allegations:

"Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon"

This may very well be true.  But really, why shouldn't they want to do so?  I want to be able to carry a gun for personal protection.  I know its not a perfect analogy but one of the ideas is that by being able to carry a firearm for personal protection it means that criminals know this as well.  I don't plan on using it for aggressive means, but why should another person have the right to say what level of arm is appropriate to deter an attack?  An armed society is a polite society?

Here is a link to an article on the IAEA report in any case: LINK

"Iran wants to nuke Israel"

This article explains some of the misunderstanding.  I am not about to say that Ahmadinejad is nice, normal, not-a-madman, or anything like that.  I am saying that at least as far as I can find proof, he has never talked about wiping israel off the map.  LINK

It may sound coom-bye-yah to you Todd, but we survived the soviets with ACTUAL nukes pointed our direction.  I don't think we stand to benefit at starting a war (or Iran to glass) just because Iran wants to have a nuke.  

But then, that is just my opinion.

Here is an interview with the ACTUAL monster Ahmadinejad, not the boogie monster we create in our own minds: LINK

[Chiburbian]

I tried to edit my response but it says it wasn't allowed?  So in advance I apologize about double posting, and this is not meant in any way an attack on any person.  I just figure if we are talking policy we might as well talk in detail and as adults.

Hossua, on 16 December 2011 - 08:16 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 16 December 2011 - 06:25 PM, said:

He is the same as those who blamed US for causing 911.

I would find it hard to believe that our own actions over the years had nothing to do with 911. Obviously those who did it are ultimately the only ones responsible for those actions, and two wrongs don't make a right. But, come on, there WAS a reason.

I used to hate Ron Paul.  Shortly after 9/11 I heard him talking about blowback and the idea that someone would blame us for 9/11 raised my blood pressure and ticked me off.  As time went on though, I realized what the problem was.  The words actually spoken talked about how our foreign policy ticked off a bunch of islamist terrorists who used that outrage as their OWN justification to committing murder.  What I heard though was that I was responsible for 9/11.

I have learned through the years, just as the government as conducted fast and furious, just as the government has banned "assault weapons," just as they have shepherded in single payer healthcare (in one form or another) - the Government is not me.  I may try and influence them through voting and staying in contact with my reps, but there are people who have way more money than I, people who profit from the government largess, who have the ear of my reps better than I ever could.

I blame them.
War is a racket. - Smedley Butler USMC

[Smallbore]

Can we be blamed for 911. We sure can. We are infidels. Thomas Jefferson in France was informed of this fact by a Muslim emissary when asked what the young USA did to his people to justfy them attacking our ships. Nothing has changed. We dare to exist.

What we learn from history is that we learn nothing.

70 years ago the USA went from theory to nuke boom in three years. Yet we are told that today it will take much longer. Does not make sense to me.
Some believe that if Iran did make a bomb, they do not have way to deliver it. I am sure that todays Iran has equal transportation capabilities as the the USA had 70 years ago.

The Soviets where not known for their suicide bombs. Iran has convinced me that they will happily use a nuke.

[Hossua]

Smallbore, on 17 December 2011 - 10:19 AM, said:

Can we be blamed for 911. We sure can. We are infidels. Thomas Jefferson in France was informed of this fact by a Muslim emissary when asked what the young USA did to his people to justfy them attacking our ships. Nothing has changed. We dare to exist.

What we learn from history is that we learn nothing.

70 years ago the USA went from theory to nuke boom in three years. Yet we are told that today it will take much longer. Does not make sense to me.
Some believe that if Iran did make a bomb, they do not have way to deliver it. I am sure that todays Iran has equal transportation capabilities as the the USA had 70 years ago.

The Soviets where not known for their suicide bombs. Iran has convinced me that they will happily use a nuke.

Which is why we have been playing kingmaker in the middle east for the past half century or so. How's that working for us? Have we accomplished what we set out to do?

The logical conclusion to the situation you describe is genocide. Do you think that is a good plan?

Edited by Hossua, 17 December 2011 - 01:09 PM.

[Molly B.]

Gentlemen, this thread took a turn away from the topic back about post #25 - let's see if we can get it back on track.