Grass Roots Activists Push for Paul

NHPR ^ | 7/18/07 | Dan Gorenstein

[BlackElk]

communist?????

[Brakeman]

Remember, anyone who is opposed to Bush and his unwise war is a communist.

[John Farson]

Our soldiers are not a police force. They should be protecting our nation’s borders — not the borders of a foreign government.

[cva66snipe]

There is much in your #27 to agree with. Unfortunately, your remedy of paleoPaulie is no remedy at all. If El Ron Paul is sooooo supportive of the war in Afghanistan, how do you suppose he justifies that position when there is no more of a "declaration of war" as to Afghanistan than there was for Iraq??? In each case, we had Congressionally enacted authorizations of using military force (the modern equivalent of a "declaration of war" in order to get around the vipers' nest of UN treaty imposed reductions of American sovereignty).

I'm pretty certain his reason was bin Ladden was a 100% certainity link to the 9/11 attacks. Saddam was not. Yemen and the Sauds likely were more involved than Iraq as they had more resources and money. More replies later if needed. It's late :>}

[BlackElk]

Arguments against Charles Manson might sound ad hominem to Squeaky Fromme but, so what? We don't have to see Charlie through her eyes or paleoPaulie through yours.

Further, what you are seeing is attacks on paleoPaulie's dangerosly naive trust and faith in al Qaeda and in his own nation crippling perversions of the constitution. That is not the same as attacking him and his advocacy of surrender to the Islamofascist enemy for his being old or a Congresscritter or mean to his dog.

[dread78645]

What is Ron Paul’s position on NATO?

It's a relic of the Cold War.
It served it's purpose, but it's time is past and should be disbanded.

In the House of Representatives, March 30, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I do so because further expansion of NATO, an outdated alliance, is not in our national interest and may well constitute a threat to our national security in the future.

More than 50 years ago the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed to defend Western Europe and the United States against attack from the communist nations of Eastern Europe. It was an alliance of sovereign nations bound together in common purpose – for mutual defense. The deterrence value of NATO helped kept the peace throughout the Cold War. In short, NATO achieved its stated mission. With the fall of the Soviet system and the accompanying disappearance of the threat of attack, in 1989–1991, NATO’s reason to exist ceased. Unfortunately, as with most bureaucracies, the end of NATO’s mission did not mean the end of NATO. Instead, heads of NATO member states gathered in 1999 desperately attempting to devise new missions for the outdated and adrift alliance. This is where NATO moved from being a defensive alliance respecting the sovereignty of its members to an offensive and interventionist organization, concerned now with "economic, social and political difficulties...ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of states," in the words of the Washington 1999 Summit.

And we saw the fruits of this new NATO mission in the former Yugoslavia, where the US, through NATO, attacked a sovereign state that threatened neither the United States nor its own neighbors. In Yugoslavia, NATO abandoned the claim it once had to the moral high ground. The result of the illegal and immoral NATO intervention in the Balkans speaks for itself: NATO troops will occupy the Balkans for the foreseeable future. No peace has been attained, merely the cessation of hostilities and a permanent dependency on US foreign aid.

The further expansion of NATO is in reality a cover for increased US interventionism in Europe and beyond. It will be a conduit for more unconstitutional US foreign aid and US interference in the internal politics of member nations, especially the new members from the former East.

It will also mean more corporate welfare at home. As we know, NATO membership demands a minimum level of military spending of its member states. For NATO’s new members, the burden of significantly increased military spending when there are no longer external threats is hard to meet. Unfortunately, this is where the US government steps in, offering aid and subsidized loans to these members so they can purchase more unneeded and unnecessary military equipment. In short, it is nothing more than corporate welfare for the US military industrial complex.

The expansion of NATO to these seven countries, we have heard, will open them up to the further expansion of US military bases, right up to the border of the former Soviet Union. Does no one worry that this continued provocation of Russia might have negative effects in the future? Is it necessary?

Further, this legislation encourages the accession of Albania, Macedonia, and Croatia – nations that not long ago were mired in civil and regional wars. The promise of US military assistance if any of these states are attacked is obviously a foolhardy one. What will the mutual defense obligations we are entering into mean if two Balkan NATO members begin hostilities against each other (again)?

In conclusion, we should not be wasting US tax money and taking on more military obligations expanding NATO. The alliance is a relic of the Cold War, a hold-over from another time, an anachronism. It should be disbanded, the sooner the better.

-- Against NATO Expansion

[ovrtaxt]

Oh, we can’t disband NATO. That wouldn’t fit with the Globalist agenda!

[George W. Bush]

	Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday] • Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 •
	Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave

[perez24]

That was the impression I got too.

[dread78645]

Oh, we can’t disband NATO. That wouldn’t fit with the Globalist agenda!

True dat.

I wonder how many of our big-Fed brethren read (and reflected on) the paragraph:

"The expansion of NATO to these seven countries, we have heard, will open them up to the further expansion of US military bases, right up to the border of the former Soviet Union. Does no one worry that this continued provocation of Russia might have negative effects in the future? Is it necessary?"

[Allegra]

It is not you specifically.

Oh, OK. It sure seemed aimed right at me with the "I love you, too" part and all. But I do appreciate your clarification and can respect that.

Paul supporters are not the ones resorting to ad hominem attacks and desperate smears.

I have had Paul supporters (not you specifically) say extremely nasty, insulting things to me and make personal attacks on my character, unprovoked. (Unless you call disagreeing with Paul's policies provocative.)

When I gave them a little of their own back, they screeched and howled like scalded chickens.

The double standard is at work everywhere.

[Allegra]

OK thanks for your honesty.

And thank you for not using it to make assumptions and personally attack my character as some Paul supporters on this forum have done.

I'm curious...why did you want to know?

[Nephi]

Ron Paul is pro life. Why do you lie?

[Oberon]

And people have been telling me he's pro-life.

Letting control of abortion to revert back to the states exactly equates to overturning Roe vs. Wade...such a reversion would be precisely the result if Roe v. Wade were overturned.

Are you saying that's not a Republican goal?

[vbmoneyspender]

So then Paul would forego missile defense because it is our treaty obligations with respect to countries such as Great Britain, Denmark, Poland, Japan, etc. which are enabling us to house the foreign bases we need in order to implement missile defense

[DugwayDuke]

“You remember federalism, don’t you?”

Ron Paul is prolife, he just doesn’t want to do anything about it. His plan would leave abortion up to the states meaning that it would be legal to murder and unborn child in some states and not in others. That is the same as saying he wants to reduce abortion, not end it. Is that what you consider prolife?

[DugwayDuke]

“Actually *declaring* war would be a start.”

But Ron Paul didn’t want to declare war on AlQaeda either. He wanted to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

[billbears]

It's pitiful really. I don't know who this ever decreasing band of police action supporters is talking to but it's not in the real world. Yes the talking heads on Fox, and of course the 'conservatives' on the radio are still up on the whole mess, but I can't say as I know two people that are behind it. And for the record, some of these people are current military members or families.

The support's just not there as it was. But of course that's all because of the 'media'. New Republican excuse, don't take responsibility...blame the media

Note this is an observation, it is not directed at anyone in particular (other than those that are in the public eye (we are still allowed to question reporters aren't we?)). It would devastate me to be considered 'rude', 'snotty', or 'condescending' for simply pointing out my position...

[DreamsofPolycarp]

I do attack anti-war leftists.

How about anti THIS war rightists? I classify someone a Paulietroll if they are unable to distinguish between the two.

Btw, my future son in law just left Sadr City and is coming home on an 18 day leave. I pray every morning for the safety of him, all his compadres, and you and the rest of the support personnel.

I see no hope of EVER extricating ourselves from Iraq without just walking away. I just read an interview with Petraeus this a.m. where he (wisely) has been cooperating with and arming the Sunnis, so to gain support against the AQ. Smart tactics, but what about when the US "pulls out" and these people are left to fight the Kurds and Shiites? My bet is they go straight to the first people who will promise them guns and money, which is.... AQ.

I just do not see the possibility of a good ending here. We cannot support and back the Kurds because that will collapse NATO and lead to open war with Turkey (they have said so, up front). We are afraid to continue to back the murderous bunch of Dawa thugs, because the Sunnis rightly know that the Shiites have blood in their eyes after 20 years of brutal oppression. Plus, despite the fact that Iranian shiites are persian, not arab (and there has been a longstanding feud between the persians and arabs), they do have a good deal of contact and influence. The third option would be to back the sunnis, but then you have the same mess we had earlier, with a 30% minority ruling over Kurds and Shiites.

I just don't see a good option, and it has nothing to do with our men and women stationed over there.

I am open to being educated and/or corrected.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

But Ron Paul didn’t want to declare war on AlQaeda either.

We don't declare war on ideologies or cliques. Wars are decleared, by definition, on nation states.