Ron Paul and the Brain-Off Conspiracy (Voted against sanctioning Iran prez along w/Kucinich)

BC Magazine ^ | July 17, 2007 | Abel Keogh

[2ndDivisionVet]

It’s a telling sign when the only two US Representatives who voted against a non-binding resolution last month to censure Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are also (thankfully) the least likely people to be elected president.

Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich were on the losing end of a 411-2 vote that reaffirmed America’s partnership with Israel, urged the United Nations Security Council to censure Ahmadinejad for past remarks about destroying Israel, and asked the U.N. to consider measures to prevent him and his terrorist cronies from obtaining the nuclear weapons.

Kucinich’s vote shouldn’t have come as a surprise since he has a long track record of hating Israel, freedom, and anything remotely pro-American. Kucinich tried to defend his vote by sounding like al-Jazeera and claiming Amhadinejad’s remarks had been mistranslated and that he really didn’t really want to destroy Israel – an allegation long since proven false.

Paul’s vote, however, was particularly disturbing. As someone who claims to champion the principles of liberty, it’s odd that he would vote against a resolution – even a non-binding one – that condemns a bunch of religious fanatics for wanting to destroy a vibrant democracy and the only beacon of freedom in the Middle East.

In his statement denouncing the resolution, Paul said:

This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. Citing various controversial statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this legislation demands that the United Nations Security Council charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Having already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing UN resolutions as justification, this resolution is like déja-vu. Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for UN resolutions?

So Paul’s vote is really one of “principle.” He was afraid that the US will go to war against Iran simply to enforce UN resolutions rather than its own national security interests.

Even though violations of UN resolutions were some but not all of the reason listed in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Act that gave President Bush the legal means to go to war, America went to war in Iraq, first and foremost, because it was in our national security interests to do so. At the time it was widely believed that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent and strategic threat to the United States, our allies, and other US interests. Hussein had admitted to being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, his desire to acquire more, and he had a clear track record of aggression against neighboring states, and sponsoring terrorism. The war could have been avoided if Hussein had accepted President Bush’s last minute offer to relinquish power and leave Iraq. He didn’t. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Paul should know that the UN is the most ineffective and corrupt organization that ever existed. It has no ability or recognized authority to back up anything decides to do. Terrorist states such as Iran and North Korea, like Iraq before the war, routinely ignore ultimatums handed down from New York. UN “peacekeeping” forces that are sent to different parts of the world are ineffective at stopping even the most basic atrocities and instead rely on the military forces of other countries to keep the peace where its troops are located.

The real danger to our way of life is not from UN’s well-intentioned but ultimately ineffective resolutions but from terrorists who not only want to acquire nuclear weapons but believe their life mission is to kill every Jew and forcibly convert everyone else – including Americans – to their religion. If we go to war with Iran it won’t be to prop up the UN but to eliminate a threat to our security and freedom.

So what is Paul’s solution to dealing with Iran? He says, “We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war.”

That sounds like something the UN would propose.

Paul’s blind adherence to his anti-UN principles is what causes politicians to ignore more obvious threats to freedom and cast a stupid and regrettable vote. Sure, the resolution was entirely symbolic but, sadly, even symbolically backing Israel’s democracy and the principles of liberty is too much for people who share Paul's libertarian politics if the UN is involved.

Paul’s logic in voting against the resolution is almost as twisted and Kucinich’s defense of his vote. The only difference is that Paul actually believes he’s acting in the spirit of Founding Fathers rather than just being someone who has been blinded by his own vanity and rhetoric.

Blind adherence to any set of principles or doctrine is dangerous. The lack of rational, objective thought when it comes to one’s beliefs is what causes some people to fly airplanes into skyscrapers, blow themselves up in crowded market places taking the lives of innocent men, women, and children, or cast a vote that ultimately favors murderous tyrants.

Thankfully, most Americans are able to see that both Paul’s and Kucinich’s positions are not based on principle but simply designed to boost their own egos.

Their air of self-importance is the main reason they’re both the leading presidential vanity candidates and long shots to win their parties presidential nomination.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Okay, let's hear it from the Paulistinians.

[mkjessup]

‘Paulistinians’, LOL - I like that!

The Ron Paul FlavorAid drinkers all chant the mantra about how their guy is the only hope of saving America, because he believes in the Constitution, etc., etc., but the aPAULogists fail to understand that a Ron Paul Presidency (shudder) would produce nothing but paralysis at the federal level, chaos throughout the government, and that (among other things) would be highly detrimental during a time of war.

If America doesn’t win this War on Islamofascism, neither Ron Paul or his groupies will have to worry about the Constitution because we’ll all either be dead, or living under sharia law.

Paul and Kookcinich, now there is a ticket for you.

[vbmoneyspender]

I’d like to know if Paul and the Libertarian Party support the Monroe Doctrine. For almost 200 years that doctrine has set forth our basic war strategy, which is to never fight a war against a foreign foe on our soil. From his recent remarks though, I get the impression that Paul wants to do away with the Monroe Doctrine and only fight wars against foreign foes on our soil? If I am wrong on this, I would appreciate it if someone in the Libertarian Party could educate me as to the Paul’s position on the Monroe Doctrine.

[crazyhorse691]

Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich were on the losing end of a 411-2 vote that reaffirmed America’s partnership with Israel, urged the United Nations Security Council to censure Ahmadinejad for past remarks about destroying Israel, and asked the U.N. to consider measures to prevent him and his terrorist cronies from obtaining the nuclear weapons.

---

Politics may make strange bedfellows, but, this is beyond defense...this thread needs to be reposted a couple of times a day so all the kook leaners can rush to defend their annointed one...and then tell us which kook they are defending

[fieldmarshaldj]

Well, folks, it’s official. Kookcinich and Dr. Demento are now twins.

[elizabetty]

Ron Paul stood on the floor and said he thinks the US is going to stage a "Gulf of Tonkin" like incident in order to attack Iran.

Like all good Truthers, he thinks America is evil.

[byteback]

I’m firmly a states rights guy so I’d like to support a Libertarian candidate on those grounds but their naive position on the threats that America faces are stupendous.

[jess35]

The big L libertarians are only interested in one war....that being the war on drugs. They are absolutely anti-war and against the Monroe Doctrine.

[jwh_Denver]

On some things, domestically, Ron Paul is a voice crying in the wilderness but on foreign policy he’s an absolute disaster. No way could I vote for him.

[vbmoneyspender]

We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea. There is no current or foreseeable risk of any conventional military attack on the American people, particularly from long distances. We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military intervention such as the Monroe Doctrine.

This is from the Libertarian Party's 1994 National Platform.

[vbmoneyspender]

Unless I miss my mark, not even the Democrats are prepared to do away with the Monroe Doctrine. Maybe that’s because the Democrats don’t want to see a repeat of what happened during the War of 1812, whereas the Libertarians would probably be tickled pink to see D.C. burned to the ground.

[johnny7]

Paulistinians...

LMAO... I hear they're setting up a caliphate in Wackostan.

[George W. Bush]

Paul should know that the UN is the most ineffective and corrupt organization that ever existed. It has no ability or recognized authority to back up anything decides to do. Terrorist states such as Iran and North Korea, like Iraq before the war, routinely ignore ultimatums handed down from New York. UN “peacekeeping” forces that are sent to different parts of the world are ineffective at stopping even the most basic atrocities and instead rely on the military forces of other countries to keep the peace where its troops are located.

Let's see, this is an organization we're supposed to trust to protect us from the terrorists or from nuclear proliferators like, for instance, our ally Pakistan who helped Iran and other states with their weapons programs? Or to do anything effective? Since when?

This is almost too funny, to see FReepers reduced to hiding under their beds just hoping that the United Nations will save them from the nuclear mullahs of Iran. And all because two congressmen failed to vote for another stupid non-binding resolution. Can the collapse of Western civilization be far behind? LOL.

Can someone tell me just which nuclear programs the United Nations has ever succeeded in stopping? There's quite a list of pariah states whose programs succeeded despite U.N. opposition.

Withdraw from the United Nations. Expel it and its corrupt diplomats and employees from our soil. Tear down its building or put it to good use (doesn't NYC always need a new crack house?).

[DugwayDuke]

“We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war.” - Ron Bin Paulin.

[WWTD]

I’d like to know if Paul and the Libertarian Party support the Monroe Doctrine. For almost 200 years that doctrine has set forth our basic war strategy, which is to never fight a war against a foreign foe on our soil. From his recent remarks though, I get the impression that Paul wants to do away with the Monroe Doctrine and only fight wars against foreign foes on our soil? If I am wrong on this, I would appreciate it if someone in the Libertarian Party could educate me as to the Paul’s position on the Monroe Doctrine. Actually, Dr. Paul's position of avoiding foreign entanglements is consistent with the Monroe Doctrine. Basically, the Monroe Doctrine stated that European countries are to stay out of the Americas and America is to stay out of Europe. Invading countries in the Middle East would seem, to me, to be against the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine, though obviously Asia is not Europe. Alas, your post, though invoking "Monroe Doctrine" three times, doesn't bother stating what it is. And the "basic war strategy" you cite has nothing to do with the Monroe doctrine. That "strategy" has a lot more to do with two oceans separating us from most of the world. Also, strangely you asked if Dr. Paul would only fight wars on American soil. I guess you are not aware that Dr. Paul voted for the troops to go to Afghanistan? What Dr. Paul did vote against was the authorization of use of force against Iraq. Iraq is a messed up country. Saddam was a bad guy. But they did not attack us. They were not involved in 9/11. And they were still considerably weakened after the first Gulf war. Our invasion immediately alienated us from much of the world. And four and one half years later, it is still a quagmire. The same people who thought it would be a walk in the park 5 years ago now warn that if we leave, it will result in anarchy. Ron Paul has been consistent on Iraq from day 1 (in fact, he voted against Clinton's 1998 resolution for regime change in Iraq). Most of the Dems who voted for it in 2003 are now against it, at least 70 percent of the American people want us out of Iraq, and in September, quite a few Republicans will probably jump ship as well. At least Ron Paul, unlike so many others, has been consistent to his principles and not playing politics over this issue. Dr. Paul is also being consistent when he refuses to vote yes on a resolution favoring Israel and condemning Iran. Washington, in his farewell address, advised us to avoid entangling alliances with other nations. Long ago, President Bush invoked Iran as part of the "axis of evil". And he now has three carrier groups in the Persian Gulf. That's some serious sabre rattling, and this Congressional resolution is just one more item that pushes us closer to war with Iran.

[LibLieSlayer]

Perhaps you and rue paul would like to extend YOUR NECK in friendship to imanutjob... it is clear with this anti-American vote (how can the man show his face amongst Conservatives when he was the only fool to vote with a known communist and anti-America whack-job... kucinich), that rue paul is a graduate of the patrick buchanan School of Isolationism, Surrender and Ignorance.

LLS

[neocon1984]

I’m not bothered by a few nutcases, like Paul and Kucinich, in Congress. What bothers me is that they are elected by people who should know better. Kucinich is from Cleveland, so that makes sense. I don’t know Paul’s Texas district, but is there something in the water there?

[Rodney King]

Last I checked, Foreign Policy was the job of the executive branch. We were all saying that here when Pelosi went to Syria.

[philman_36]

Well would you look at this...
About Abel Keogh
He served a mission for the LDS church in Bulgaria .
All About Abel
He served a mission for the LDS church in Bulgaria .
Do you think that as a LDS member he supports Romney?
If he does wouldn't he naturally attack anybody going against Romney?

[2ndDivisionVet]

If that’s so, why is former President Jimmy Carter (Baptist) going against almost all of his co-religionists on Israel? Not everything is about religion. Remember, Senator Harry Reid is a Mormon. Do you think HE supports Mitt Romney?! LOL