Posted on 06/03/2010 5:49:37 AM PDT by wtc911
Ron Paul just threw Israel under the bus on Imus.
Interesting, he's been saying that for a long time and been condemned on FreeRepublic often for it.
Very true, and I am opposed to all foreign aid.
So is Ron Paul, actually.
He condemned Israel for defending itself--and had nothing to say whatsoever about the other side.
And here's where the nuance comes in, I believe. I said he's an anti-statist. That means that he is against government aggression against civilians. I think he thinks the Israeli government is being aggressive against civilians. He criticized the US government for our government's treatment of Iraq during the 90's. Clinton is a southern bubba, not a Jew.
An act of war, by definition, is an act that provocates a war to take place through action against another state: casus foederis. An "Act of War" would be something that causes the war, such as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria.
There are three ways to look at this, one, it is a police action of a sovereign nation protecting its own citizens on its own territory. Two, it is an action as part of an existing war that has been ongoing (not casus foederis: cause). Or three, it is an act of war against Israel by Turkey (who owned the ships) in invading Israel's territory.
...he's an anti-statist. He doesn't like any government's aggression against civilians. That's his consistent point of view....
Those of you who like the US intervention in Israel's affairs should know it is our interference that has helped to prolonged this mess. LBJ would not let Israel march into Damascus, for one.
It seems people often forget that Paul is a representative of the United States Government, and thus, any statement by him is in part, a statement by the US Government. Far from being 'non-interventionist' as you like to claim, his statement damning Israel and constant statements against Israel's actions (even those like this one that had no US involvement) are just as interventionist as a statement supporting their actions. A true non-interventionist would make no statement other than something along the lines of 'they are a sovereign nation, what they do is their business'. It is BS that he is a non-interventionist. He quickly intervenes all the times with statements damning our allies while supporting our enemies.
Which means he is completely clueless, as always. These ships were chartered by the government of Turkey. They were supplying Hamas, which is recognized as a political organization. They were being manned and equipped by the IHH which is an arm of Turkey's government. Israel is a sovereign nation, it is best he quit intervening as a Representative of the US Government through his damning and ignorant statements on the situation.
the action or process of intervening : they are plants that grow naturally without human intervention.
interference by a country in another's affairs : the administration was reported to be considering military intervention.
action taken to improve a situation, esp. a medical disorder : two patients were referred for surgical intervention.
I don't see how making comments on a radio show about a situation is intervention in that situation.
Then let Israel declare war on Turkey.
What about comments on a blog? Are those interventions? Does the blog have to be popular? If so, how popular?
Are Lindsay Lohan’s tweets considered intervention? What about that McCain chick? Are here tweets intervention?
What if no one reads them? What if no one hears the comments?
Give me a break.
While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about "condemning" the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives.- Ron Paul
I guess he only follows his own advice when it is non-Jews he is stalking about.
If the statements are made by an official of the US Government in the capacity of representing the US, then yes, they are. It isn't where the statements are made, it is the authority of the person making the statement. Paul isn't just some kook sitting in a corner of a coffee shop talking to himself. Maybe you should listen to Paul's own words on the subject (regarding Iran in this case).
While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about "condemning" the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives.- Ron Paul
No. You are wrong. If you believe that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the federal government was set up. He is not in the executive branch. He is a congressman. Maybe you went to government schools?
Where’s that from? What was the question that was asked? When was it asked? What was Iran doing that prompted the question?
Was he talking about making comments on a radio show or passing an act in congress?
Here you go:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=20364
He was talking about the people condemning Iran for suppressing the pro-democracy uprising.
It shouldn't matter, right is right, wrong is wrong. He is a representative of the US government. He is quick to damn Israel yet he damns those who condemn Iran for putting down pro-democracy uprisings. I swear, you Paultards have situational ethics down to a whole other game- the situation being if you think Paul floats one way, that is ethically right..
No, it matters a great deal. One is an act of congress. Another is an individual person’s opinion expressed on a radio show.
One goes in the record forever, another floats away to be heard by maybe 10 people getting ready for work.
Oh, and if you do want to have some situational ethic situation drawing a line on comments made on a radio program, how about his statement on Alex Jones' show about Iran (can't post the source here but easy to find): ..we have no right to judge another country's actions. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran...
He was NOT talking about "the people" condemning Iran. He was talking about the legislative body of one country condemning the government of another.
You went to public screwel, right?
Again, he’s talking about an act of congress. He’s criticizing Congress getting into a pissing match with Iran.
He’s always been anti-Israel. Always.
Actually, no, I went to private schools, which is why I seem to have a firm grasp of ethics, unlike the situational ethics game you seem to play in these situations. He is a member of a legislative body condemning another country. Sure, our government is set up in a way that “shouldn’t” matter without a resolution, but it does matter. He was quick to pronounce judgment without knowing all the facts. The real irony of this is he, today, was complaining about Republicans they shouldn’t be criticizing Obama over the oil spill issue.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2526969/posts
Typical Paul.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.