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

[rambone]

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

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.

 

[88GT]

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.

Agreed.

But there's a middle ground between our current embroilment in any and every skirmish just because we think we're so important that everything has to affect us and the completely isolated trade-only nation that Paul seems to favor.

It's a political reality that there are friends and foes among nations. And it's a political reality that trade is affected by those friendships and animosities. And no other country in this world practices completely free trade, so our doing so would necessarily hurt us in some fashion.

While we currently do not necessarily have the treaties of historic times that lay out strict promises to protect our friends and neighbors in time of military conflict, there are implications and innuendos in foreign relations that lead to these expectations. Our interests abroad are protected by other nations in many ways. And this only exists because of the relationships we have with them. Relationships that extend beyond our trade agreements.

My concern is that Paul will isolate so completely from our friends and neighbors beyond a trade relationship, that if there ever comes a time when our assistance is requested or expected, and we fail to deliver, the consequences will be more harmful than pitching in and giving a hand to them.

Clearly this isn't a call for intervention without oversight. But given a situation like Britain faced in 1939, Paul has said he would have remained outside the conflict. Is it better to stay out of such things and let bad things happen with who knows what as a consequence? Which could very well directly affect us. Or is it better to interject ourselves into a situation that doesn't currently involve our direct and immediate interests, but that could easily have a negative impact on our overall situation if the situation turned out the wrong way?

I'm not saying one is right or the other is wrong. Clearly a lot would depend on the circumstances and plenty of big picture considerations. But I am saying that a hard and fast rule about not involving oneself in the affairs of others is a foolhardy position to take. Of course, this all assumes we want to maintain our position as a world leader and powerhouse, which frankly, I do. Not because I want to wield that power, but because that power comes with the ability to respond to asshats that think our sovereignty means nothing.

Paul has some great positions on government, fiscal issues, and even social issues. And I agree with 99% of them. But his position of foreign policy is out of touch with reality and ignorant of the way the rest of the world works.

 

[hornadylnl]

Our current foreign policy is so muddied that no one can seem to make sense of it. What would our founding fathers say about our current foreign policy?

What vital interest was I protecting while wasting 6 months of my life in Bosnia?

 

[Garb]

Agreed.

But there's a middle ground between our current embroilment in any and every skirmish just because we think we're so important that everything has to affect us and the completely isolated trade-only nation that Paul seems to favor.

It's a political reality that there are friends and foes among nations. And it's a political reality that trade is affected by those friendships and animosities. And no other country in this world practices completely free trade, so our doing so would necessarily hurt us in some fashion.

While we currently do not necessarily have the treaties of historic times that lay out strict promises to protect our friends and neighbors in time of military conflict, there are implications and innuendos in foreign relations that lead to these expectations. Our interests abroad are protected by other nations in many ways. And this only exists because of the relationships we have with them. Relationships that extend beyond our trade agreements.

My concern is that Paul will isolate so completely from our friends and neighbors beyond a trade relationship, that if there ever comes a time when our assistance is requested or expected, and we fail to deliver, the consequences will be more harmful than pitching in and giving a hand to them.

Clearly this isn't a call for intervention without oversight. But given a situation like Britain faced in 1939, Paul has said he would have remained outside the conflict. Is it better to stay out of such things and let bad things happen with who knows what as a consequence? Which could very well directly affect us. Or is it better to interject ourselves into a situation that doesn't currently involve our direct and immediate interests, but that could easily have a negative impact on our overall situation if the situation turned out the wrong way?

I'm not saying one is right or the other is wrong. Clearly a lot would depend on the circumstances and plenty of big picture considerations. But I am saying that a hard and fast rule about not involving oneself in the affairs of others is a foolhardy position to take. Of course, this all assumes we want to maintain our position as a world leader and powerhouse, which frankly, I do. Not because I want to wield that power, but because that power comes with the ability to respond to asshats that think our sovereignty means nothing.

Paul has some great positions on government, fiscal issues, and even social issues. And I agree with 99% of them. But his position of foreign policy is out of touch with reality and ignorant of the way the rest of the world works.

I don't disagree with you. But I do think his ideas on foreign policy are much more realistic than the ones we're currently operating under.

 

[Mad Anthony Wayne]

Quote:
Originally Posted by hornadylnl
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

.

And what would Ron Paul do if lightening struck Santa on his way to deliver presents??? Let's live in the real world, not speculations. Here's a couple quick answers for ya 1) We don't need to protect Israel. They would KICK IRANS ASS and be home in time for lunch. Ask the handful of countries who lined up to fight them in the 6 day war. It's called the 6 day war for a reason. 2) North Korea cannot storm South Korea without going through tens of thousands of US troops already. Were in a cease fire with North Korea. Officially that war has never ended. Ron Paul isn't moving those troops anywhere. 3) What the hell will the republican nominee do if China invades Taiwan?? Nuke em?? We damn sure can't fight a land war against a nation that has bragged they can put a billion men in battle....a billion! All of our volunteer forces put together including the Coast Guard equals about 300,000. We can't fight a billion Chinese. Are you proposing we drop nukes over freaking Taiwan....seriously??? I can live without my Nike tennis shoes. But let's face it, China owns most of our national debt, thanks in large part to this war mongering type thinking, and we are so tied to China economically that no president from any party will do a damn thing against them except try to pass a meaningless resolution with the UN...Can you see Russia from your house?? Besides economics 101, there is such a thing as history 101.

 

[88GT]

Our current foreign policy is so muddied that no one can seem to make sense of it. What would our founding fathers say about our current foreign policy?

So good of you to ask. Washington invaded Canada. Jefferson engaged in the Barbary Wars, and while the result of which meant we no longer had to pay tribute to Tripoli, we continued to pay to the remainder of the Barbary states. (Ironically, the little bastard has the dubious distinction of establishing the precedent of the Executive Order. But that's not really relevant, it just sticks in my craw and gives me one more reason to dislike the ol' boy.) Madison--a primary author of the Constitution, no less--initiated the War of 1812. And launched a second round of war with the Barbary pirates.

It is pertinent to note that of the three I mentioned, the latter two are considered by contemporary historians to be members of the political party most associated with greater individual freedoms and more restrictive authority of the federal government. Jeffersonian republicanism is downright synonymous with Paul's non-interventionism, and yet both he and Madison felt it necessary to take the initiative and utilize the military in the absence of direct, overt aggression against the continental U.S.

To answer your question: most would find the rampant use of the military as a police force and nation-builder to be reprehensible. But contrary to the arguments many would have us believe, they were NEVER against military action without direct provocation. Hell, the totality of the second Barbary War was to subdue the area precisely so the U.S. could resume its lucrative trade. We hadn't had any ships in the area since the onset of the War of 1812 thanks to Britain having ousted from the region, so there can't possibly have been any acts of aggression against us warranting military action. And yet, there is was.

It is a myopic viewpoint that believes the interactions with other nations can be compartmentalized and cordoned off from each other such that the trade agreements will never affect the diplomatic discussions, or vice versa. Paul's position ignores this reality.

What vital interest was I protecting while wasting 6 months of my life in Bosnia?

If your premise is such that because one military action is unwarranted, all military action is unwarranted, I am going to have to disagree. I am also going to have to say that such an argument is essentially a straw man that, IMO, attempts to deflect from the broader issue of international relations by reducing it to the ridiculous.

Friends to all and enemies to none is a laudable goal. But the problem is that the rest of the world doesn't see things this way. And we'll make enemies simply by being friends.

I'm not justifying military action that is clearly unwarranted. But it is not a logic position to hold that the justification for military is wrong even when that justification is used wrongly. IOW, just because some asshat decides to use "justifiable war" language in an effort to swell the ranks of supporters, it doesn't devalue the actual use of justifiable war.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Hog-Wash ! !

When all of the "far out libertarian ideals" are published over and over and over and over and over and over by the main media, poor Ron won't even recognize that he used to be an American. Perry is an under-cover Clinton, whose crafty words before the election won't buy you a cup of coffee AFTER the election. But he WILL beat Øbama. Just ask Geo. Soros. EBG

 

[Mad Anthony Wayne]

Perry will carry the south, but that won't get him elected. His seceding comment will be played over and over and over and over. There's a whole lot of people who live north of the Mason Dixon line.

 

[Mad Anthony Wayne]

Post 100. Lol!! I usually only troll the classifieds, but I like this INGO crowd in this area. A lot of good folks posting here and even though we disagree, I have a feeling everyone here wants better for this great nation.

 

[hornadylnl]

So good of you to ask. Washington invaded Canada. Jefferson engaged in the Barbary Wars, and while the result of which meant we no longer had to pay tribute to Tripoli, we continued to pay to the remainder of the Barbary states. (Ironically, the little bastard has the dubious distinction of establishing the precedent of the Executive Order. But that's not really relevant, it just sticks in my craw and gives me one more reason to dislike the ol' boy.) Madison--a primary author of the Constitution, no less--initiated the War of 1812. And launched a second round of war with the Barbary pirates.

It is pertinent to note that of the three I mentioned, the latter two are considered by contemporary historians to be members of the political party most associated with greater individual freedoms and more restrictive authority of the federal government. Jeffersonian republicanism is downright synonymous with Paul's non-interventionism, and yet both he and Madison felt it necessary to take the initiative and utilize the military in the absence of direct, overt aggression against the continental U.S.

To answer your question: most would find the rampant use of the military as a police force and nation-builder to be reprehensible. But contrary to the arguments many would have us believe, they were NEVER against military action without direct provocation. Hell, the totality of the second Barbary War was to subdue the area precisely so the U.S. could resume its lucrative trade. We hadn't had any ships in the area since the onset of the War of 1812 thanks to Britain having ousted from the region, so there can't possibly have been any acts of aggression against us warranting military action. And yet, there is was.

It is a myopic viewpoint that believes the interactions with other nations can be compartmentalized and cordoned off from each other such that the trade agreements will never affect the diplomatic discussions, or vice versa. Paul's position ignores this reality.




If your premise is such that because one military action is unwarranted, all military action is unwarranted, I am going to have to disagree. I am also going to have to say that such an argument is essentially a straw man that, IMO, attempts to deflect from the broader issue of international relations by reducing it to the ridiculous.

Friends to all and enemies to none is a laudable goal. But the problem is that the rest of the world doesn't see things this way. And we'll make enemies simply by being friends.

I'm not justifying military action that is clearly unwarranted. But it is not a logic position to hold that the justification for military is wrong even when that justification is used wrongly. IOW, just because some asshat decides to use "justifiable war" language in an effort to swell the ranks of supporters, it doesn't devalue the actual use of justifiable war.

I'm not a pacifist or a non interventionist at all. I'm also not a war hawk. But given the propaganda on both sides, it's impossible for the regular citizen to know if a war is truly justified. Our foreign policy cares little about the future ramifications of today's actions.

I feel we should turn into glass any nation who would attack our homeland. But we've gotten to such a point with preemption that our government describes the majority of it's citizens as terrorists. I'm in full support of wars that protect American citizens. I give zero support for wars that protect the financial risks of corporations. If I choose to conduct business in a foreign nation, I choose to abide by that nations government. I as an Indiana resident don't buy property in another state and expect the Indiana state police to provide my security for that out of state property.

 

[Stschil]

So many have said so much that it's hard to address each one. (my iPhone screen is just too small for all those quotes ), So I'll just stick to generalities.

The US as a World Power; In my mind, this came about because of the strength and resolve of the People as well as our Commercial assests such as manufacturing and booming economy. It WAS rightly so that other nations looked at the US as a giant. However, those strengths, I believe are not with us any more. They have been supplanted and substituted. Like the amputee that can still "feel" the limb that is no longer there, so too does the US. The building blocks of our former greatness are still in our memories, yet the collective mind refuses to accept that there is nothing attached to them any longer.
The "People" of this country no longer have resolve. "We" no longer the strength of will to pull ourselves out of the muck that our past generations had. "We've" grown lazy, selfish, and uncaring.
This thread alone has pages and pages of opinions about how one candidatewho has mostly good ideas, cannot expect to garner enough support
to be elected because his platform would cause actions to be undertaken that, though good for the Nation, would require people to get off their 4th points of contact and work.

National Defense: I believe strongly that the US should maintain a strong defense and should be ready to take action. But I don't agree with our Military being used to prop up and secure the financial interests of private corporations abroad under the guise of "National Security". I abhore the the fact that day in and day out we are bombarded with manufactured threats to keep those patriotic drum beating. I weep for the families of those who have lost the lives in military action that has been sold to "Us" as justified under false pretenses.
I'm of the mindset that one of two things needs to happen. Bring our troops home or stop lying to world about the reasons they are there in the first place.
If the US wants to be the World Power, then be it. Commit to the truth. The Middle East conflicts ARE, in fact, about gaining control of the oil fields and supporting the interests of Oil Companies. Build the New Empire, as Britain once did. If "We" are not willing to admit to these facts and act on them, "We" need to GTFO.

Supporting our Allies: Who are these "Allies"? I mean really, the US makes back door deals with the worst of mankind. The all mighty dollar is all that matters to those in power, we've made many enemies in pursuit of it, but do we really have any allies left in this world?

In closing, I really don't think that Dr Paul wants to turn us into a strict isolationist country, I think he realizes the fact that it's time to consolidate what strengths and talent we have left here at home and bring back the things that this country used to stand for. To replace the lost limb, so to speak.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

Ron Paul is NOT anti-war. ...
Ron Paul doesn't like our current wars because we never clearly declared war like the US Constitution demands. .

Not so fast. The above is only partially correct.

The following quote is from the 2007 Presidential debate in South Carolina:

Q [to Paul]: You are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq. Are you out of step with your party? Or is your party out of step with the rest of the world?

PAUL: I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy. There’s a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, and stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them. Just think of the tremendous improvement in relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men [during the Vietnam war]. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there’s a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution. And my argument is that we shouldn’t go to war so carelessly. When we do, the wars don’t end.

And here, in his own words again from 2007:

For civilization to advance, we must reduce the number of wars fought. Two conditions must be met if we hope to achieve this.


First, all military (and covert paramilitary) personnel worldwide must refuse to initiate offensive wars beyond their borders This must become a matter of personal honor for every individual.

Second, the true nature of war must be laid bare, and the glorification must end. Instead of promoting war heroes with parades and medals for wars not fought in the true defense of our country, we should more honestly contemplate the real results of war: death, destruction, horrible wounds, civilian casualties, economic costs, and the loss of liberty at home.

The neoconservative belief that war is inherently patriotic, beneficial, manly, and necessary for human progress must be debunked. These war promoters never send themselves or their own children off to fight. Their hero, Machiavelli, must be buried once and for all. Source: A Foreign Policy of Freedom, by Ron Paul, p.363-364 Jun 15, 2007

He sounds pretty anti-war to me. I believe he is opposed to all initiation of force.

 

[88GT]

I'm not a pacifist or a non interventionist at all. I'm also not a war hawk. But given the propaganda on both sides, it's impossible for the regular citizen to know if a war is truly justified.

Very true. But I don't see much changing. I don't know what the answer is though. It's just not feasible to seek a perfect state in this country. Even if it were possible withIN our boundaries, the fact that the rest of the world doesn't operate with the same play book kind of makes it difficult. It's all well and good to say "friends to all (trade) and enemies to none." It's just not a practical situation in today's world.

Our foreign policy cares little about the future ramifications of today's actions.

It works both ways though. Paul's foreign policy ignores the ramifications of not doing anything, even when there seems to be no direct consequence on the U.S.

I feel we should turn into glass any nation who would attack our homeland. But we've gotten to such a point with preemption that our government describes the majority of it's citizens as terrorists. I'm in full support of wars that protect American citizens. I give zero support for wars that protect the financial risks of corporations. If I choose to conduct business in a foreign nation, I choose to abide by that nations government. I as an Indiana resident don't buy property in another state and expect the Indiana state police to provide my security for that out of state property.[/QUOTE]

Granted, and agreed. But what about the middle ground? It's not an exact example, so please understand this is for illustrative purposes and not meant to be strictly analogous. During WW2, part of Hitler's success was the fact that when he went on his blitzkrieg he was met with little to no opposition. I'm not just talking about the countries he invaded that had no capability to meet/match his military's capabilities. Those nations that did have the capability failed to act in protection of their allies (in some cases, in direct violation of their treaty obligations as well). Germany had not ramped up their full military capability yet and though it would have still required some bloody conflict, it might not have taken 6 years and the loss of countless more lives.

Churchill is quite adamant about this point in his memoirs, and he was constantly trying to effect a different outcome. I mean, we all know the reputation Chamberlain has now and why, right?

Though I am not suggesting that the U.S. should have jumped into that fracas, I am suggesting that England and France should have. And if the U.S. is ever faced with a similar situation with potentially similar outcomes, I think it would behoove us to take pre-emptive action NOW rather than reaction action later. Because later ALWAYS costs more, always. My concern is that Paul does not share this vision and his good intentions [STRIKE]will[/STRIKE] could backfire.

Not so fast. The above is only partially correct.

The following quote is from the 2007 Presidential debate in South Carolina:



And here, in his own words again from 2007:



He sounds pretty anti-war to me. I believe he is opposed to all initiation of force.

Anti-war would be the equivalent of avoiding all war, even defensive war. Is that where Paul stands? Because if that's true, I hold him in about as much regard as I hold the Kenyan. Anybody who puts the avoidance of military action above the protection of this nation.....needs to find a new home.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I concur with 88GT. The concept of non-initiation of force works great, until you get sucker-punched and can't recover. Nuclear warfare is one example where waiting for the other guy to throw the first punch is counter-productive - as a steadfast policy. This is separate from the policy of "deterrence," where the other guy knows you are ready and capable of destroying him if he hits you. And other folks throughout the world are perfectly willing to initiate force, if they think they can get away with it through using proxies - sort of like the North Koreans, the Sandinistas, the Cubans, the Egyptians, Syrians, and Palestinians, the Venezuelans, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, etc. All of these polities or groups have been armed, equipped and directed at us or our allies, with the behind-the-scenes actors having "plausible deniability" in the event the perps get caught red-handed. If a nuke is smuggled into the US, who will we retaliate against? We either need to play by the rules everyone else does, or, if that runs against our deeply held beliefs, we need to find a way to make ourselves unassailable by military means or terrorism; anything less by the government is a failure to uphold their Constitutional Oath. Rep Paul is exactly as deluded as the Democrats and the current President who thought that if they went around apologizing to those who don't love us and making nice, others would be nice to us in return. Hasn't happened; hasn't helped; won't happen in Pres Paul's Administration, either.

 

[jsgolfman]

Paul is not anti-war, never has been and never stated anything of the sort. As was mentioned above, he is against the initiation of aggression. You don't preemptively attack someone because you are pretty sure he was going to attack you at some point. This country no longer knows the meaning of the word diplomacy. Contrary to majority opinion on this board, it does not mean appeasement.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

Anti-war would be the equivalent of avoiding all war, even defensive war. Is that where Paul stands? Because if that's true, I hold him in about as much regard as I hold the Kenyan. Anybody who puts the avoidance of military action above the protection of this nation.....needs to find a new home.

No, 88 I stand corrected. I overstated his position. He is anti- "offensive war." He considers such to be "un-American." He is opposed to "preventive", "pre-emptive" or "wars of aggression". He believes strongly that the only proper function of the US military is national defense, not intervening in other nations affairs. He believes in strong national defense, including defensive wars if necessary.

Paul: Limit military to national defense | Concord Monitor

From a 2007 interview with The Washington Post:

"There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons."

 

[WWIIIDefender]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTdXq8f4eVc&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[88GT]

Paul is not anti-war, never has been and never stated anything of the sort. As was mentioned above, he is against the initiation of aggression. You don't preemptively attack someone because you are pretty sure he was going to attack you at some point. This country no longer knows the meaning of the word diplomacy. Contrary to majority opinion on this board, it does not mean appeasement.

Why not?

When the avoidance of war becomes the goal in and of itself, it ceases being diplomacy and absolutely becomes appeasement. So, yes, in one sense, you're absolutely right that this country no longer understands diplomacy.

Crap, forgot to add: Elsie--good to hear.

 

[Bitter Clinger]

Congressman Paul is NOT the person I want receiving that 3 AM phone call in the White House.

 

[jsgolfman]

Why not?

When the avoidance of war becomes the goal in and of itself, it ceases being diplomacy and absolutely becomes appeasement. So, yes, in one sense, you're absolutely right that this country no longer understands diplomacy.

Crap, forgot to add: Elsie--good to hear.

Avoidance of war has never been THE goal, though I can say it has been A goal. Diplomacy now seems to mean carry a big stick and use it early and often. Diplomacy now seems to mean do what I say or else.
None of what Dr. Paul has said equates to appeasement or isolationism or a weak military. If national defense means you have to open a can on somebody, he's all for it. The difference is, we won't be out there stirring the hornets nest in order to facilitate it.

And BC, he's EXACTLY the guy you want answering that call at 3AM.