"Vote Rudy McRompson or Die!"
Posted on 07/19/2007 8:52:30 AM PDT by BGHater
The recent defeat of the amnesty bill in the Senate came after outraged Americans made it clear to the political elite that they would not tolerate this legislation, which would further erode our national sovereignty. Similarly, polls increasingly show the unpopularity of the Iraq war, as well as of the Congress that seems incapable of ending it.
Because some people who vocally oppose amnesty are supportive of the war, the ideological connection between support of the war and amnesty is often masked. If there is a single word explaining the reasons why we continue to fight unpopular wars and see legislation like the amnesty bill nearly become law, that word is “globalism.”
The international elite, including many in the political and economic leadership of this country, believe our constitutional republic is antiquated and the loyalty Americans have for our form of government is like a superstition, needing to be done away with. When it benefits elites, they pay lip service to the American way, even while undermining it.
We must remain focused on what ideology underlies the approach being taken by those who see themselves as our ruling-class, and not get distracted by the passions of the moment or the rhetorical devices used to convince us how their plans will be “good for us.” Whether it is managed trade being presented under the rhetoric of “free trade,” or the ideas of “regime change” abroad and “making the world safe for democracy” -- the underlying principle is globalism.
Although different rhetoric is used in each instance, the basic underlying notion behind replacing regimes abroad and allowing foreign people to come to this country illegally is best understood by comprehending this ideal of the globalist elite. In one of his most lucid moments President Bush spoke of the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” Unfortunately, that bigotry is one of the core tenets at the heart of the globalist ideology.
The basic idea is that foreigners cannot manage their own affairs so we have to do it for them. This may require sending troops to far off lands that do not threaten us, and it may also require “welcoming with open arms” people who come here illegally. All along globalists claim a moral high ground, as if our government is responsible for ensuring the general welfare of all people. Yet the consequences are devastating to our own taxpayers, as well as many of those we claim to be helping.
Perhaps the most seriously damaged victim of this approach is our own constitutional republic, because globalism undermines both the republican and democratic traditions of this nation. Not only does it make a mockery of the self-rule upon which our republic is based, it also erodes the very institutions of our republic and replaces them with international institutions that are often incompatible with our way of life.
The defeat of the amnesty bill proves though that there is no infallible logic, or predetermined march of history, that forces globalism on us.
Yes he has as I just noted on another thread. Not on nonsensical "no declaration" grounds, but because he thought Sadaam posed no threat, that we were complicit in his rise and his invasion of Kuwait, and that we'd alienate our allies.
He opposed the war, period.
“Since no WMD were ever found nor any evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11, Ron Paul voted against invasion.”
Actually, Ron Paul jumped on the WMD card after the invasion, around the same time as the left. Before the war, Ron Paul was warning everyone that all of the Arab and Gulf states would enact an oil embargo against the United States if the United States attacked Iraq. When is this oil embargo supposed to happen?
“He voted to authorize the president to pursue Bin Laden into Afghanistan (more a collection of medieval fiefdoms under warlords than an actual country) “
But there was no declaration of war. Ron Paul authorized military action against the internationally recognized soverign nation of Afghanistan without a declaration of war. And then he claims that this was unconstitutional in regards to Iraq.
“Saddam executed Islamic radicals out of hand as a danger to his regime just as other Arab dictators do.”
Radicals? You mean like Abu Abbas, a convicted Palestinian terrorist who masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered a wheelchair bound Amreican? Oh, wait, Saddam provided safe haven for international terrorists like Abbas.
“That is not the case with the Afghans whose excesses and barbarism repelled even other Muslims.”
How about Al Qaeda in Iraq, whose excess barbarism is repelling even other Muslims? Oh wait, we can’t fight them there can we, because there was no declaration of war (even though we are fighting the same enemy in Afghanistan without a declaration of war). And you never elaborated on you insinuations that the objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom have changed. I remember debunking this arguement in 2004 during the elections, and I haven’t seen it sense, except from you. I want to debunk it again, just for old times sake (it’s funny seeing regurgitated DNC talking points from 2004 appear on the net.) So tell me, in detail, what objectives have changed.
Thank you.
No, opposed to the war because Sadaam didn't pose a threat to the US. Introducing a declaration which he knows hasn't a chance is pure grandstanding. And like it or not, Sadaams violation of a multitude of UN Resolutions are relevant. Even if Paul doesn't recognize the stats of treaties. We joined the organization for better or worse. Advocating withdrawl is a legitimate position, pretending it doesn't exist is nonsensical. My post from another thread on the "Paul supported the war" issue.
--------------------------
A Declaration would have accomplished nothing the Authorization doesn't, mistakes we made are the administrations, not Congress'.
And the contension that Paul's opposition is based on the Declaration/Authorization issue is simply wrong. He was opposed to invading Iraq because they hadn't attacked us, they posed no threat to the US, that we were partially responsible for Sadaam in the first place. I disagree, I think a post-sanctions Sadaam, and sanctions were about over, would have posed a serious threat to our interests in the region. Our interests being oil, something Sadaam coveted.
His supporters should simply accept and acknowledge that he was opposed to the war on multiple grounds and move on. If his positions sould more like John Kerry than GWB, so be it.
My bolds. In addition to the lack of a threat, with which I disagree, his opposition seems to be largely based on what the rest of the world will think of us, I don't much care, and our culpability in encouraging Sadaam, which is irrelevant.
Ron Paul on Another War Against Iraqhttp://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul7.html
by Congressman Ron Paul, MD
I strongly oppose House Joint Resolution 75 because it solves none of our problems and only creates new ones. Though the legislation before us today does wisely excise the most objectionable part of the original text of H.J. Res. 75 – the resolution clause stating that by not obeying a UN resolution Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been committing an "act of aggression" against the United States – what remains in the legislation only serves to divert our attention from what should be our number one priority at this time: finding and bringing to justice those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.
Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. The Iraqi people would no doubt be better off without him and his despotic rule. But the call in some quarters for the United States to intervene to change Iraq's government is a voice that offers little in the way of a real solution to our problems in the Middle East – many of which were caused by our interventionism in the first place. Secretary of State Colin Powell underscored recently this lack of planning on Iraq, saying, "I never saw a plan that was going to take [Saddam] out. It was just some ideas coming from various quarters about, 'let's go bomb.'"
House Joint Resolution 64, passed on September 14 just after the terrorist attack, states that, "The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons." From all that we know at present, Iraq appears to have had no such role. Indeed, we have seen "evidence" of Iraqi involvement in the attacks on the United States proven false over the past couple of weeks. Just this week, for example, the "smoking gun" of Iraqi involvement in the attack seems to have been debunked: The New York Times reported that "the Prague meeting (allegedly between al-Qaeda terrorist Mohamad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent) has emerged as an object lesson in the limits of intelligence reports rather than the cornerstone of the case against Iraq." The Times goes on to suggest that the "Mohamad Atta" who was in the Czech Republic this summer seems to have been Pakistani national who happened to have the same name. It appears that this meeting never took place, or at least not in the way it has been reported. This conclusion has also been drawn by the Czech media and is reviewed in a report on Radio Free Europe's Newsline. Even those asserting Iraqi involvement in the anthrax scare in the United States – a theory forwarded most aggressively by Iraqi defector Khidir Hamza and former CIA director James Woolsey – have, with the revelation that the anthrax is domestic, had their arguments silenced by the facts.
Absent Iraqi involvement in the attack on the United States, I can only wonder why so many in Congress seek to divert resources away from our efforts to bring those who did attack us to justice. That hardly seems a prudent move. Many will argue that it doesn't matter whether Iraq had a role in the attack on us, Iraq is a threat to the United States and therefore must be dealt with. Some on this committee have made this very argument. Mr. Speaker, most of us here have never been to Iraq, however those who have, like former UN Chief Arms Inspector Scott Ritter – who lead some thirty inspection missions to Iraq – come to different conclusions on the country. Asked in November on Fox News Channel by John Kasich sitting in for Bill O'Reilly about how much of a threat Saddam Hussein poses to the United States, former Chief Inspector Ritter said, " In terms of military threat, absolutely nothing...Diplomatically, politically, Saddam's a little bit of a threat. In terms of real national security threat to the United States, no, none. " Mr. Speaker, shouldn't we even stop for a moment to consider what some of these experts are saying before we move further down the road toward military confrontation?
The rationale for this legislation is suspect, not the least because it employs a revisionist view of recent Middle East history. This legislation brings up, as part of its indictment against Iraq, that Iraq attacked Iran some twenty years ago. What the legislation fails to mention is that at that time Iraq was an ally of the United States, and counted on technical and military support from the United States in its war on Iran. Similarly, the legislation mentions Iraq's invasion of Kuwait more than ten years ago. But at that time U.S. foreign policy was sending Saddam Hussein mixed messages, as Iraq's dispute with Kuwait simmered. At the time, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie was reported in the New York Times as giving very ambiguous signals to Saddam Hussein regarding Kuwait, allegedly telling Hussein that the United States had no interest in Arab-Arab disputes.
We must also consider the damage a military invasion of Iraq will do to our alliance in this fight against terrorism. An attack on Iraq could destroy that international coalition against terrorism. Most of our European allies – critical in maintaining this coalition – have explicitly stated their opposition to any attack on Iraq. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer warned recently that Europe was "completely united" in opposition to any attack on Iraq. Russian President Vladimir Putin cautioned recently against American military action in Iraq. Mr. Putin urged the next step to be centered around cutting off the financial resources of terrorists worldwide. As for Iraq, the Russian president said, "...so far I have no confirmation, no evidence that Iraq is financing the terrorists that we are fighting against." Relations with our European allies would suffer should we continue down this path toward military conflict with Iraq.
Likewise, U.S. relations with the Gulf states like Saudi Arabia could collapse should the United States initiate an attack on Iraq. Not only would our Saudi allies deny us the use of their territory to launch the attack, but a certain backlash from all Gulf and Arab states could well produce even an oil embargo against the United States. Egypt, a key ally in our fight against terrorism, has also warned against any attack on Iraq. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said recently of the coalition that, "If we want to keep consensus...we should not resort, after Afghanistan, to military means."
I do not understand this push to seek out another country to bomb next. Media and various politicians and pundits seem to delight in predicting from week to week which country should be next on our bombing list. Is military action now the foreign policy of first resort for the United States? When it comes to other countries and warring disputes, the United States counsels dialogue without exception. We urge the Catholics and Protestants to talk to each other, we urge the Israelis and Palestinians to talk to each other. Even at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union had missiles pointed at us from 90 miles away in Cuba, we solved the dispute through dialogue and diplomacy. Why is it, in this post Cold War era, that the United States seems to turn first to the military to solve its foreign policy problems? Is diplomacy dead?
In conclusion, this legislation, even in its watered-down form, moves us closer to conflict with Iraq. This is not in our interest at this time. It also, ironically enough, could serve to further Osama bin Laden's twisted plans for a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. Invading Iraq, with the massive loss of life on both sides, would only forward bin Laden's hateful plan. I think we need to look at our priorities here. We are still seeking those most responsible for the attacks on the United States. Now hardly seems the time to go out in search of new battles.
December 21, 2001
Gray can also denote an acknowledgment of complexity and refraining from throwing out the baby with the bathwater (to use an over-used cliche). Gray is the hue that makes life interesting and breathes life into blacks and whites.
"Vote Rudy McRompson or Die!"
Ah, jeez, I was just kidding. You guys are so literal! LOL.
“Maybe you should blame those responsible for those open borders over which the nuke will come, eh?”
Oh I would. And I would go after a President Paul if it turned out that he could have stopped it beforehand but might have had to do something that wasn’t specifically covered by the Constitution, so he just had to wait and react.
Actually I believe Paul's position is that preemption is both un-American and immoral. War's are to be waged for self-defence, in my mind that can happen only after the fact.
“War’s are to be waged for self-defence, in my mind that can happen only after the fact.”
And when we are talking nuclear terrorism, after the fact is too damned late.
bumPing!
On the question of preemption, that's what you're addressing I believe, in his QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ he states
26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?
and
29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?
30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?
31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?
I include 30 and 31 to demonstrate the moonbattiness.
Ron Paul, the only public official to understand and follow the Constitution, contends that the Constitution limits war to self defence, and that we're bound by the "sentiments" of the "Treaty of Westphalia".
Which would be fine had we ratified it, but we haven't.
Clearly Ron Paul supports the Supreme Court looking to Europe for guidance when they can't find the correct answers here in America.
For simplicity, the Questions are all here to be addressed.
Well said. That is exactly how I am right now.
If we had control of our borders and didn’t let in folk from nutjob countries on visas that we can’t track, there wouldn’t have been a 9/11 either.
Follow the logic.
Oh Pleeease....All these replys are sooooo scripted. Nothing original here.
So is the scripted posts of the anti-Paul-bots.
You won’t debate ideas, you just add meaningless clutter to the thread.
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.