Why Ron Paul can beat Obama: He converts Democrats on war & civil liberty

[Mad Anthony Wayne]

I hear a lot of you guys stating our clear political differences with different countries and cultures...but what do you propose we do??? I just want to hear some of you say what I suspect you want to do "let's invade." I have yet to hear about any true threat to our homeland....and before you say "911," please remember there was no government behind that attack. It was a group of terrorist. These guys can be hiding under a rock in any country waiting to attack us. So what should we do? Sell off more debt to China and start 2, 3, 4, 10 more wars??? Afghanistan is proving we can't rid the world of people who hate us. We've drawn back to protecting the population centers and have conceded the rural areas (which is most the country). Why do you think we have done that? Because the war is going so splendidly? Our resources are stretched thin militarily, we don't have the money to pay for all this without borrowing, we are one real conflict (like North Korea storming South Korea) from the draft...and I promise you this, as soft as this nation has become if we implement a draft the liberals will CLEAN OUR CLOCKS the next election. Neo conservative policies will drive this country in to the ground. Stop inhaling the Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfawitz (sp?) smoke. It's a horrid approach and not consistent with our constitution.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Maybe he and others do, in fact, have a more than adequate grasp of the situation, and have decided otherwise.

More so the latter, as having emerged victorious after the Second World War, they were spreading their ideology anywhere and everywhere they could, any way they were able. That last quoted line glosses over a lot, not the least of which is that Mossadegh was an (international) socialist, i.e. a communist, or under the influence of that ideology.

As an aside, I make this charge partly because many years ago, my very first political science professor was an expat Iranian who, although he didn't always wear it on his sleeve, had been a Mossadegh supporter and was still incensed that the CIA had helped depose his hero. The very first lecture on the very first day, the first words out of his mouth (and I'll never forget them) were, "Americans are just going to have to learn that the idea of communism appeals to millions of people throughout the world."
- delivered in a lofty, smug, only slightly condescending tone with an accent. There was more, then and later, criticizing the "domino theory" and U.S. foreign policy in general. Didn't drop the course, as I was curious what else he had to say. Didn't consider it appropriate to point out to him (and I'm sure he was painfully aware) that yeah, it's really too bad that, rightly or wrongly, the country to which he bears allegiance was (to take one cynical view) used as a pawn in the gargantuan power struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union. At any rate, other topics raised were tainted by the fact that he had on that first day raised a huge red flag - with a hammer and sickle on it.

It is not required of you to go into greater detail as information is available, and people should go ahead and look it up for themselves to form their own conclusions, keeping in mind the source (and bias) of the info.
Dirty business, that. The repression of the Shah and SAVAK came up repeatedly in and out of the classroom. Also that the US was prevailed upon to protect British oil interests there in the first place. What was (and often still is) not covered is whether they had legitimate contracts, and whether it is justified for a new government to essentially tear up existing contracts, seize infrastructure and/or declare under new terms that henceforth that particular industry will surrender profit to the new government to be redistributed as it sees fit, on the grounds that the foreign-based corporation(s) that had built and maintained the infrastructure was "plundering" or "exploiting" resources that belong to the proletariat, er... people.

or maybe they believed the hysterical media hype at that time that Reagan was a "madman with his finger on the nuclear trigger" and just might turn their entire country into a "clean slate". Arguments persist to this day, depending on one's point of view. It is noted that, in this case, you refer to the release of Americans held hostage as a "gesture of goodwill", yet in another thread on the Mexican war you refer to the US actually paying $$$ to Mexico for territory as possibly stemming from a "guilty conscience". Interesting how some folks have a habit of siding with adversaries, or belligerant enemies, of the United States.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." Maybe the US wasn't too hip on Iran for some reason.

So you've made the pro-Iranian argument. Don't worry about the nuke. Short of annihilating them all and/or the mass application of thermobaric bombs, they'll get one sooner or later.
More moral equivalence.

Maybe they do understand. Very well then. Points were raised and arguments made. What does or does not constitute propaganda, and for whom, can be determined by each on his/her own. Maybe they're not interested in listing grievances because at some point, as overly simplistic as it sounds, it still comes down to whose side you're on.

Acknowledging quietly and formulating a different strategy is one thing. The current occupant of the White House has a habit of bowing, scraping, and apologizing for the USofA. Surprised he hasn't done so in Tehran already.

A better tack. Not bad.

I would prefer that you make a rebuttal based in verified facts rather than "maybes" and references to dirty business. You story of your Iranian political science professor, while interesting, has as much bear on this argument, as my Iranian friend Sina, who's general father (under the Shah), escaped to Sarasota, FL and owns a beachfront mansion with two kitchens.... and that's the small house.

...and dude did you seriously just mention the Mexican-American War? If the US didn't have guilty conscience, they probably should have.

 

[MTC]

Kut,

As strange as it may sound, it wasn't so much meant as a rebuttal. Really. Rather more like jottin' down notes on a different point of view. It might even, in a roundabout way, help others by encouraging more reading or research.

Have a nice day.

 

[Bitter Clinger]

What are our vital overseas interests?

Israel, Taiwan, South Korea, to name only a few. Ron Paul seems to think the U.S. can just cut off foreign ties and crawl into our shell. If he were president, what would Congressman Paul do if China invaded Taiwan? What would Ron Paul do if North Korea invaded South Korea? What would Ron Paul do if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel? These are not far fetched, they are very real possibilities.

What about something not as dramatic. Suppose Iran decided to mine the Strait of Hormuz? What if Egypt closed the Suez Canal?

My point is there are a lot of bad guys in the world, and they don't have to set foot on our shores to have a devastating impact. Isolationism is not a viable foreign policy in this day and age. Ron Paul does not understand this.

Ron Paul is not the person I want getting that 3 am phone call in the White House.

 

[hornadylnl]

Israel, Taiwan, South Korea, to name only a few. Ron Paul seems to think the U.S. can just cut off foreign ties and crawl into our shell. If he were president, what would Congressman Paul do if China invaded Taiwan? What would Ron Paul do if North Korea invaded South Korea? What would Ron Paul do if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel? These are not far fetched, they are very real possibilities.

What about something not as dramatic. Suppose Iran decided to mine the Strait of Hormuz? What if Egypt closed the Suez Canal?

My point is there are a lot of bad guys in the world, and they don't have to set foot on our shores to have a devastating impact. Isolationism is not a viable foreign policy in this day and age. Ron Paul does not understand this.

So why don't we just go ahead and make it a one world government with the US at the head?

 

[Bitter Clinger]

So why don't we just go ahead and make it a one world government with the US at the head?

What does defending our overseas interests have to do with one world government? Your response is as illogical as some of the statements I have heard Congressman Paul make.

 

[hornadylnl]

What does defending our overseas interests have to do with one world government? Your response is as illogical as some of the statements I have heard Congressman Paul make.

What is our interest in Israel, Taiwan, and South Korea? How do they specifically affect our national sovereignty?

 

[NYFelon]

As far as national sovereignty, none of those nations affects us in any manner at all. Taiwan and ROK are major trade partners of the US. Why that means we have to babysit them, I have no idea. As far as Israel, I seriously don't get the notion that we have to defend them to the bloody end. They're quite capable of defending themselves as they have proved numerous times.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kut,

As strange as it may sound, it wasn't so much meant as a rebuttal. Really. Rather more like jottin' down notes on a different point of view. It might even, in a roundabout way, help others by encouraging more reading or research.

Have a nice day.

Oh, then I read the tone of that complete wrong (Kuts admits his hubris). I completely agree, let people research and form their own opinions. But please everybody read (multiple sources/different povs), and don't listen to talking heads or the stuff we've been fed throughout school.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Israel, Taiwan, South Korea, to name only a few. Ron Paul seems to think the U.S. can just cut off foreign ties and crawl into our shell. If he were president, what would Congressman Paul do if China invaded Taiwan? What would Ron Paul do if North Korea invaded South Korea? What would Ron Paul do if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel? These are not far fetched, they are very real possibilities.

What about something not as dramatic. Suppose Iran decided to mine the Strait of Hormuz? What if Egypt closed the Suez Canal?

My point is there are a lot of bad guys in the world, and they don't have to set foot on our shores to have a devastating impact. Isolationism is not a viable foreign policy in this day and age. Ron Paul does not understand this.

Ron Paul is not the person I want getting that 3 am phone call in the White House.

What IF Egypt closed the Suez Canal? It's in Egypt right?

 

[rambone]

As far as Israel, I seriously don't get the notion that we have to defend them to the bloody end. They're quite capable of defending themselves as they have proved numerous times.

Like when they blew up the U.S.S. Liberty and machine gunned the survivors. Or how about the time they stole U.S. nuclear secrets.

Yeah, I'll gladly pledge my life and fortune to fight their wars for them.

 

[NYFelon]

The Liberty is a non-issue. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the attack on the Liberty was a pure-d mistake. As far as "theft" of nuclear secrets, I find it far more likely that we gave the Israeli's the nuclear plans clandestinely, in order to maintain plausible deniability and still remain "in compliance" Of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Israel's not our enemy. We don't need to hold their hand while they cross the street just because they're our friend though.

 

[hornadylnl]

As far as national sovereignty, none of those nations affects us in any manner at all. Taiwan and ROK are major trade partners of the US. Why that means we have to babysit them, I have no idea. As far as Israel, I seriously don't get the notion that we have to defend them to the bloody end. They're quite capable of defending themselves as they have proved numerous times.

And what do those countries provide us that we can't provide for ourselves? I'd gladly pay a little more for goods if it means I don't have to pay for their national defense.

I have ZERO problem with trading with other nations as I'm of the Austrian economics school of thought. I just don't believe our military should be used to safeguard our supply of cheap electronics.

 

[NYFelon]

That's pretty much what I said. We're on the same page, sir.

 

[Bitter Clinger]

What is our interest in Israel, Taiwan, and South Korea? How do they specifically affect our national sovereignty?

Again I fail to see the logic in your connection. What does national sovereignty have to do with defending vital interests?

I don't want to give you a crash course in Economics 101. If you don't understand that we have hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. privately owned assets invested in these countries, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[mrjarrell]

What IF Egypt closed the Suez Canal? It's in Egypt right?

Egypt isn't going to close the Suez. Ever. They get way too much money from its operation and they've always needed as much money as they could get. Nothing's changed. Even if it did, it's none of our business. Closing it would hurt them more than us. It's nonsensical to even think about it.
As for the others, who cares? China attacks Taiwan? No sitting president for the last 30 years has had the nads to uphold the treaties we have for the defence of Taiwan. Hell, Bush and Obama wouldn't even approve selling them planes they wanted to buy, because it would hack off the Chinese. Yeah, show of support!
At least Ron Paul would leave warmaking in the hands it is supposed to be in. The Congress. If they want to take us to war then they'd have to give forth with a declaration of war, like they're supposed to. Paul would insist on it. None of that BS "Bush Doctrine" crap.

 

[hornadylnl]

Again I fail to see the logic in your connection. What does national sovereignty have to do with defending vital interests?

I don't want to give you a crash course in Economics 101. If you don't understand that we have hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. privately owned assets invested in these countries, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

So the purpose of the US military is to protect my wallet and the wallets of US corporations?

 

[hornadylnl]

That's pretty much what I said. We're on the same page, sir.

Sorry, I was agreeing with you and adding a half penny.

 

[level.eleven]

Again I fail to see the logic in your connection. What does national sovereignty have to do with defending vital interests?

I don't want to give you a crash course in Economics 101. If you don't understand that we have hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. privately owned assets invested in these countries, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

No, I understand crony capitalism and banksters. I understand the fact that our military adventurism is tied to the dollar and its use as a reserve currency.

 

[RockofStrength]

Again I fail to see the logic in your connection. What does national sovereignty have to do with defending vital interests?

I don't want to give you a crash course in Economics 101. If you don't understand that we have hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. privately owned assets invested in these countries, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

We should not use our military to defend American business interests. The idea that brave volunteers would be sent into a slaughterhouse for the sake of Taiwanese junk is dishonorable to the entirety of our military and all it stands for.

I am well aware that we do send them all over the place for that very reason, but we should not.