Globalism [Ron Paul]

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.

I believe we should have gone after Saddam in the first Gulf War, but we didn't.

I agree completly, not just because he was nutty, but his sons were a thousand times worse.

At the very least, we knew Saddam was supporting the Palestinian terrorists (he did so very publically).

So are the Saudis, but it's okay because President Bush says they are our friends. We can just ignore them paying off the families of people who go and blow up innocent Israelis.

I presume that you are now supportive of the 'surge',

Actually I'm against the surge, not because of any "nation building" or the like, but because it implies a temporary buildup and then removal of troops. That signals to our enemies that they just need to keep some pressure on and wait until the surge is over. It's compounded by the fact that because of how Bush and his staff (even though they blame the generals, ultimate responsibility lies on their shoulders) are basically going to help the Democrats walk right into office.

So not only will there be a point where the surge is over and those temporary troops are pulled out of Iraq, but the conditions are set for us to pull almost all troops out.

That's a victory for our enemies.

Rather than a surge, I'd like to just see a buildup, and say "we are adding 50,000 or 100,000 troops to Iraq, until the job is done, period, end of story"

Unfortunately, because President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld refused to increase the military substantially, we face a point where we have a lot of troops on their second and third tours, and these are people that are going to be burned out, and they won't re-enlist when the time comes and/or their experiences will deter others. As much as I'm a part of the "shut up and do your duty" contingent, I can understand some who are getting burned out.

I don’t think he went in front of the UN with false information, that’s conspiracy theory stuff…..But it was false. You can say or believe anything you like. You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

Amazing how we finally hear all this now. A cynical person might think Powell is just playing CYA and considering history's opinion of him.

People can think whatever they want, but it wasn’t a secret that there was a disagreement within the administration over troop level. Gen. Shinseki calling for 700,000 troops, which cost him his job It generated many threads. Politically irrelevant, perhaps, he’s not in office, which is irrelevant as to the validity of his opinion. What Israel has to do with all this is beyond me. Why Israel and my religion frequently come up on Ron Paul threads is quite bizarre….Probably because of ongoing charges that RP is some kind of antisemite. And the security of Israel is always a part of discussing policy in the oil patch.

Like the contension that Sadaam was the head of al Qaida it makes more sense to raise those issues directly with the people making them rather than randomly raising the issue in relation to Colin Powell.

Like it or not it is a fact that the world believed Sadaam had WMDs, and while much of the information was later proven wrong, that doesn’t equate with the charge of going in front of the UN with false information. That’s the realm of conspiracy nuts, if true GWB’s first “Guf of Tonkin” deception.

Actually, the world didn't believe it, they certainly seemed to be siding with the U.N. inspectors. (we've warned all of you often enough about having any dealings with the U.N. so we're not to blame if you're so stupid to allow those enemies of the West to exist here in our own country).

And the information is either true or false. The inspectors, some American, said no WMD. We pounded our fists and yelled "WMD". We invaded. No WMD.

Whether Powell knew there were no WMD will be a question for a long time, perhaps never resolved.

People can think whatever they want, but it wasn’t a secret that there was a disagreement within the administration over troop level. Gen. Shinseki calling for 700,000 troops, which cost him his job It generated many threads.

Powell's disagreements in GW II were not just over staffing levels. However, he did do his job and presented what the administration wanted at the U.N. So he was a loyal employee. But his competence and even his integrity is now in question. Well, if you're rational, it is.

Personally, I am suspicious at all times of government, not just when it's held by Democrats. It's the difference between being a conservative or being just another partisan hack.

“No one has ever questioned the presence of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and in Pakistan’s tribal areas, allied with and harbored by the Taliban warlords.”

This does not relate to my arguement. Ron Paul claims opposition to Operation Iraqi Freedom based on no declaration of war. But he supports military intervention in Afganistan without a declaration of war.

“The invasion of Iraq was over Saddam’s supposed violations of treaty obligations that forbid the development of WMD. “

This statement alone indicates that you have no understanding of Saddam’s obligations to the council. To call it ‘supposed’ violations show a complete lack of understanding of the terms of the cease fire that ended the first gulf war. The council unanimously concluded that Saddam was in breach of said terms.

“Being casual over the provisions of the Constitution or completely ignoring destroys its power as the safeguard of our liberty. “

These are more fallacious arguements.

” I was not aware that our ceasefire with Saddam and the U.N. resolutions specifically dealt with harboring terrorists. “

Yes, it dealt with many issues, including terrorism. The council unanimously concluded that Saddam was in breach of his commitments regarding terrorism. How would have Ron Paul enforced Saddam’s complaince with terrorism. (All lefties and anti-war Paul fans do not answer this question. They pretend instead as though I asked if large quantities of WMDs were found, which is what you have done and will do again).

“So, you’re saying there is a group that identifies itself as “al-Qaeda In Iraq” as the name of their group? And that they are directly affiliated and act under orders from the Bin Laden organization?”

Yes, the Al Qaeda in Iraq is foreign led. They had to resort to making up a guy in an effort to put an Iraqi face on their terror group.

Ron Paul claims opposition to Operation Iraqi Freedom based on no declaration of war. But he supports military intervention in Afganistan without a declaration of war.

He opposed the invasion of Iraq because there was no evidence of Iraqi WMD, the primary justification for invading Iraq.

This statement alone indicates that you have no understanding of Saddam’s obligations to the council. To call it ‘supposed’ violations show a complete lack of understanding of the terms of the cease fire that ended the first gulf war. The council unanimously concluded that Saddam was in breach of said terms.

And yet, the Security Council did not support our invasion. So you have your reward. Live by the U.N., die by the U.N. It's pretty much what anyone familiar with them expects.

Our foreign policy should never be subject to the approval of or the veto of the Security Council. You'd never catch Ron Paul crawling to them on hands and knees. He'd defund them and expel them.

Yes, it dealt with many issues, including terrorism. The council unanimously concluded that Saddam was in breach of his commitments regarding terrorism. How would have Ron Paul enforced Saddam’s complaince with terrorism.

Again, you resort to the "authority" of the Security Council. So if you do so as the basis for war against Iraq and regard them as the arbiters of the peace, then the entire Iraq adventure, following their rejection of our requests for authorization, was illegal and Bush, Cheney, Powell and our military leaders are all war criminals. Naturally, I reject any notion that the U.N. has any place in our foreign policy. For that matter, even in our country.

You cannot appeal to their authority and then deny that it is legitimate when they deny authorization for their goofy treaty protocols. It was never a proper and constitutional treaty under our Constitution to begin with.

Yes, the Al Qaeda in Iraq is foreign led. They had to resort to making up a guy in an effort to put an Iraqi face on their terror group.

I don't doubt there are some actual al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq and that they might even be directing or participating in some attacks. But I don't think that is where they are concentrating their effort. Most of what we're seeing now is internal factionalism, aided by and armed by Iranians and Syrians and Saudis who are pursuing their own interests, hoping to carve out a chunk of post-American Iraq for themselves or their sect. And the Baathists are undoubtedly active as well.

“He opposed the invasion of Iraq because there was no evidence of Iraqi WMD,”

“And yet, the Security Council did not support our invasion.”

This statement doesn’t even make sense. Both the U.S. and U.K are permanant members of the council and both supported it.

“Our foreign policy should never be subject to the approval of or the veto of the Security Council. “

Unless it fits your template? You later falsely claim that the council didn’t authorize the action as a basis of your arguement.

“Again, you resort to the “authority” of the Security Council. So if you do so as the basis for war against Iraq and regard them as the arbiters of the peace, then the entire Iraq adventure, following their rejection of our requests for authorization, was illegal and Bush, Cheney, Powell and our military leaders are all war criminals.”

Operation Iraqi Freedom was authorized by the council via the resolutions. So your statement is ficticous. Which means that your accusation of war criminals is not only ficticious as well, but absurd. You cannot specify how Ron Paul would have enforced Saddam’s commitments to the cease fire agreement in regards to terrorism. In fact, you’ve shown you won’t even go near that one, and instead use false claims and misdirections. You falsely claim that the council rejected authorization to enforce the resolutions (which is absurd). Your claim directly contradicts the actual multi-national legislation of the council, which is reiterated in 1441, [Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990)].

“You cannot appeal to their authority and then deny that it is legitimate when they deny authorization for their goofy treaty protocols.”

Here you appearently reiterate your false claim regarding authorization. Since the council authorized ‘all nessisary means’ to enforce the resolutions, how would have Ron Paul ensured Saddam’s complaince to the resolutions in regards to terrorism (as I predicted, you cannot answer this question)?

Actually, it was Saddam’s obligation to verifiably destroy the unaccounted for WMDs. But once again, you are using misdirection. Ron Paul opposes Operation Iraqi Freedom, amoung other reasons, because there was no declaration of war, yet he suppports intervention in Afganistan without a declaration of war. You have demonstrated you cannot address this double standard. You use WMD red-herrings instead.

Saddam said he destroyed it. The inspectors complained but the Security Council did not authorize war on that basis. Try again.

I wish you would stop bowing and scraping to the U.N. It's like debating some Euroweenie. Who even cares about the United Nations to begin with anyway? Well, except liberal globalists, normally called Democrats.

Unless it fits your template? You later falsely claim that the council didn’t authorize the action as a basis of your argument.

What? The Security Council most certainly did not authorize our invasion. Britain's eighteenth resolution did not pass. It needed 9 of 15 votes and it only had four supporters so it was withdrawn. We invaded shortly after, well, after diddling around with Turkey (the Xlinton-elevated ambassador there was that idiot who just helped Hitlery by writing her that nasty letter) while Kofi Annan whined it was all illegal. Of course, that was only his opinion. Under the charter, only the Security Council can decide if it was illegal. So it was unauthorized because we didn't have the votes to get it authorized and China/Russia/France/Germany didn't have the votes to condemn it since we and Britain would have just vetoed it anyway. And for that, we stalled our invasion plans for months.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was authorized by the council via the resolutions.

It was not. Why do you think the Eurohordes protested so insanely? They thought they'd finally gotten us to submit and play by U.N. rules. Well, we then proved that we played only by the "rules" if they led to our desired results. That's why the Eurohordes were so furious. And it has damaged our reputation abroad, far worse than a simple unilateral invasion which is what we did in the end.

We should never deal with the U.N. We should not fund it. We should expel it and its corrupt members from our soil. I can't grasp how anyone fails to grasp it. Our participation at the United Nations actually caused far more problems than if we'd just invaded unilaterally. And our soldiers suffered for it because we allowed them to stall us for months until the very hottest season of the year. For that matter, it gave Saddam a lot of time to hide things he didn't want anyone to find, time to liquidate people he needed to silence. Waiting for months is always a mistake in war.

You cannot specify how Ron Paul would have enforced Saddam’s commitments to the cease fire agreement in regards to terrorism.

I'm not sure precisely how Ron Paul would view the peace accords. Obviously they were worthless since they subjected our actions to the vote/veto of the Security Council which we then proceeded to defy anyway (the defiance part was about the only good thing that resulted since it undermined confidence in the U.N. all over the world so that part actually turned out well by sheer accident, at least to anyone who is an American patriot).

If RP was convinced Iraq posed a threat, he would simply ask the Congress for a declaration of war. If he believed there was a credible and imminent threat, he'd simply attack Iraq. In no case would he consult with the United Nations. In other words, pure unilateralism under the Constitution.

You falsely claim that the council rejected authorization to enforce the resolutions (which is absurd). Your claim directly contradicts the actual multi-national legislation of the council, which is reiterated in 1441, [Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990)].

You apply those selectively and completely out of context. The earlier resolutions applied to GW I in the restoration of the Kuwaiti monarchy and authorized members (the U.S. and Britain) to maintain a no-fly zone and other measures.

If you were actually correct (and not spinning complete fiction), then there was actually no reason whatsoever even to go to the United Nations for authorization. But you're wrong, of course, and that is why Britain dragged us in there and let them waste our time and actually made our diplomatic position much worse than if we'd just invaded unilaterally to begin with. The entire United Nations effort was a disaster. And yet, we continue to support them. It's nuts.

Here you appearently reiterate your false claim regarding authorization. Since the council authorized ‘all nessisary means’ to enforce the resolutions, how would have Ron Paul ensured Saddam’s complaince to the resolutions in regards to terrorism (as I predicted, you cannot answer this question)?

No, I'm disputing the false assertions of someone who all too happy to cede our sovereignty to the United Nations. However, you fail to grasp what was and was not authorized and have to resort to GW I resolutions in which the Coalition was specifically predicated upon avoiding regime change and destabilization of the region (the current situation BTW). And you try to use that in order to justify the 2003 invasion for the purpose of regime change.

As for me, as with Ron Paul, the United Nations is irrelevant, dangerous and corrupt. So Ron Paul would have no interest in a U.N. resolution. He would simply act directly if Saddam posed a threat to the United States.

As for the terrorism Saddam was rewarding by subsidizing the families of Pali suicide bombers, you are dangerously close to saying that our invasion of Iraq was conducted solely to benefit Israel and depose Saddam as a sponsor of Pali terrorism within Israel. Or is that actually what you are saying? And as I recall, we only discovered that one big Pali terrorist after we invaded, not before. I think Saddam was paying a subsidy of around $18,000 USD to some (not all) families of suicide bombers. Other families were paid by Saudis and others. If your memory is better, fill in the numbers or quote a source.

“Saddam said he destroyed it.”

He was obligated to verifiably destory the unaccounted for WMDs. He failed to do so. His claims are irrelevent.

“The inspectors complained but the Security Council did not authorize war on that basis. Try again.”

Even when I copy and paste the text authorizing the action, you deny it. Try again.

“I wish you would stop bowing and scraping to the U.N.”

You are unfamiliar with the multi-national legislation that dictated the provisions of the cease fire. The cease fire was based upon Saddam’s compliance with the resolutions. Citing these is not ‘bowing to the UN’.

“Who even cares about the United Nations to begin with anyway? “

The provisions of the cease fire was based upon Saddam’s compliance with the resolutions. For example, the council unanimously concluded that Saddam was in breach of his commitments regarding terrorism (watch this, this is fun, I’ll copy and paste the exact text for you, and you will dismiss it): [the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism]. This is the unanimous findings of the council as declared in UNSCr1441. Now you will foolishly attempt to claim that I took this text out of context, as you did with the other excerpt.

“What? The Security Council most certainly did not authorize our invasion. “

As I had already stated, the resolutions authorized the actions, via the declaration I had cited earlier. The one you claim was taken out of context. Here it is again: [Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990)]. Note that ‘all nessisary means’ includes military. Do you want to debate this? What do you mean when you claim I took it out of context?

“It was not. Why do you think the Eurohordes protested so insanely?”

More logical fallacy. The ‘eurohordes’ protested so therefore that’s proof that the action was not authorized. (BTW, it’s funny hearing Paul supporters complain that action was not authorized by the U.N. as a talking point). Anyway, as I stated earlier, the action was authorized by the text I cited earlier, the one you claimed was taken out of context. A member state by any means nessisary can enforce the resolutions, per UNSCR 660. Saddam’s failure to comply made military action the only possible solution to enforcement. This is why you, and all anti-war folks, cannot state how you would have enforced Saddam’s compliance with the resolutions in regards to terrorism. How would have Ron Paul enforced the resolutions on Iraq regarding terrorism? (Note that you still have no answer to this, but rather more ficticious statements (ie, claiming the provisions were taken out of context, or using WMD misdirection).

“And it has damaged our reputation abroad, far worse than a simple unilateral invasion which is what we did in the end.”

30+ nations = unilateral invasion. lol

“Obviously they were worthless since they subjected our actions to the vote/veto of the Security Council which we then proceeded to defy anyway”

Which Security Concil resolution did we defy?

“If RP was convinced Iraq posed a threat, he would simply ask the Congress for a declaration of war. “

No, he would blame U.S. foreign policy as he always does.

“No, I’m disputing the false assertions of someone who all too happy to cede our sovereignty to the United Nations.”

More logical fallacy. Nowhere did I claim I wanted to ‘cede our sovereignty to the United Nations’. Rather than using logical fallacies, why not try answering what I actually asked: Since the council authorized ‘all nessisary means’ to enforce the resolutions, how would have Ron Paul ensured Saddam’s complaince to the resolutions in regards to terrorism (as I predicted, you cannot answer this question).

“However, you fail to grasp what was and was not authorized and have to resort to GW I resolutions “

Resort to GWI resolutions? The cease fire was based upon Iraq’s complaince with the ‘GWI resolutions’. 1441 is a ‘GWI resolution’, which gave Saddam ‘a final oppertunity to comply’. As stated by the council, [Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance]. Now, rather than concede that the resolutions ‘ authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions ‘, you falsely claimed I took the provisions of the resolutions out of context, which is a dishonest claim on your part. ‘Use all necessary means’ to implement ‘all relevent resolutions’ nullifies your claim that the action was not authorized. It also states that the cease fire was based on Iraq’s complaince with ‘all relevent resolutions’. The council unanimously concluded that Saddam was in breach of these provisions, as stated in 1441.

“If you were actually correct (and not spinning complete fiction), “

Which statements have I made that you believe are ficticious?

“Or is that actually what you are saying? “

As I stated earlier, the council unanimously concluded that Saddam was in breach of his commitments to the resolutions regarding terrorism. How would Ron Paul have enforced Saddam’s complaince in regards to terrorism?

He was obligated to verifiably destory the unaccounted for WMDs. He failed to do so. His claims are irrelevent.

True enough. He was in violation. But that did not automatically allow any U.N. member to engage in regime change. That seems to be your key misunderstanding. But the assertion is self-refuting: if mere violations by Saddam were enough to allow any other country to invade, then we and Britain wouldn't have bothered to waste months at the U.N., trying to get authorization.

As I had already stated, the resolutions authorized the actions, via the declaration I had cited earlier. The one you claim was taken out of context. Here it is again: [Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990)]. Note that ‘all nessisary means’ includes military. Do you want to debate this? What do you mean when you claim I took it out of context?

I'm saying that the authorization referred to embargo and sanctions and no-fly zones, etc. Not invasion, not regime change.

(BTW, it’s funny hearing Paul supporters complain that action was not authorized by the U.N. as a talking point).

I was pointing out that much of the international friction and damage to our reputation internationally was because we ever gave the impression that we were under the authority of the United Nations. By "submitting" to attempt to get the Security Council's authorization, we played into the hands of the anti-American elements in those countries, leading to the Euroweenie protests. Now, in the end Blair held on because the Tories are incompetent and Chirac/Villepain are out of office. But we lost Spain. And Berluscini (sp?) in Italy. And created some unnecessary friction between Old Europe and New Europe. It is a hidden cost to the war's diplomacy.

Which Security Concil resolution did we defy?

It was unauthorized. That was our goal at the U.N. after all. But they didn't vote it illegal because they knew we'd just veto that.

More logical fallacy. Nowhere did I claim I wanted to ‘cede our sovereignty to the United Nations’.

But you have. You argue as though the United Nations and its sanctions or treaties or weapons inspections have any bearing on U.S. foreign policy. Obviously, you think they do. So you are a globalist and believe the U.N. somehow magically possesses an authority equal to or superior to that of the United States. Otherwise, there is no reason to consult with them when going to war, the highest function of national sovereignty.

As I stated earlier, the council unanimously concluded that Saddam was in breach of his commitments to the resolutions regarding terrorism. How would Ron Paul have enforced Saddam’s complaince in regards to terrorism?

Yes, they did. But they didn't authorize an invasion, did they? And Ron Paul would likely act unilaterally or with trustworthy allies.

If that's your key point in this, the difference between Ron Paul and Bush in that situation, I would say Ron Paul would deem the WMD evidence, such as it was, to be insufficient and that there was no direct or imminent threat. So no invasion. If he was convinced that Iraq was a belligerent nation preparing to strike us, alone or in concert with others, he would have consulted with Congress for a declaration of war. If he thought the threat was imminent, he would attack immediately without consulting Congress (but prudently notifying senior leadership at the first opportunity). In no event would he consult the United Nations.

My expectation is that President Paul would not appoint an ambassador to the United Nations. Period. He would withdraw all funding that he could. He would find ways to make their lives uncomfortable and make them feel unwelcome, possibly seeking to revoke the diplomatic status of the envoys. Or try to get Congress to build them a new headquarters in another country.

Anyway, I think I gave you the gist of it. We're spending a lot of time and being a little repetitive here, writing book chapter length posts. Since it's unlikely we're coming to agreement, I'm willing to let it go. But if you have some fresh stuff or think I'm evasive, I could continue. I am on another thread that has gotten a bit hot though.

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.