GOP's Ron Paul wants all troops home

Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | 09/12/07 | JOEL CONNELLY

[wideawake]

Constitutional conservatives have so little in common with freerepublic.

LOL!

It took 15 posts before a freeper acknowledged Ron Paul actually follows the constitution.

Except, of course, that Ron paul is an enemy of the US Constitution.

ClearCase_guy, why is it that the people who bray the loudest about defending the Constitution always adopt the arguments of the radical Anti-Federalists - the original sworn enemies of the US Constitution? Or the arguments of the Confederates - who attempted to destroy the Constitution?

In the case of Ron Paul it goes beyond even these two anti-Constitutional factions and extends to the arguments of Lysander Spooner - the crackpot who argued that US Constitution has no legal standing or authority.

[US at Risk]

As the only anti-war candidate, he's likely to pick up some very strange bedfellows, but a vote's a vote.

Uh, huh. Kinda like "The end justifies the means".

Just politics! A LOT of people will be voting for Fred just because they like him in the movies, knowing nothing else. I hope nobody votes for Rudy, btw.

[mnehring]

that was before Jim Robinson embraced undeclared pre-emptive wars.

You forgot your courtesy ping for whenever you mention a fellow freeper. (ping Jim)

Also, to say that Paul follows the Constitution is laughable.. he talks a lot about the Constitution and he has a pretty decent domestic voting record, but it isn't anything to shout about, and it sure isn't more 'constitutional' than many other members..

[trisham]

I remember when freerepublic was a conservative forum...of course, that was before Jim Robinson embraced undeclared pre-emptive wars.

***************

If you're going to talk about someone, you should ping them.

[SJackson]

I agree on the stability issue and am holding for more information. RP is dumb like a fox, making people howl with outrage at his sound bites while others take a deeper look to see what the fuss is about.

No he's not, he's straightforward, his supporters attempt to muddy the waters. He's crystal clear on the timeframe. This article reiterates the point that troop withdrawls will be worldwide, not confined to the middle east. And the withdrawl from the mideast will be immediate.

If you were president, how fast and how far would you withdraw from Iraq?

As quickly as possible and as far away as possible. I think the military people have to tell you how fast you can do it safely, but it wouldn't be one of these things [where I would] wait six months to start. I would do it immediately; I would certainly move the Navy away from the shores of Iran — and from intimidating Iran and trying to provoke them and [to] spread the war…. Of course, in the overall foreign policy, I'd like to bring the troops home from most other places around the world, too.

Get the troops back on American soil? That's what you propose?

That is correct.

Withdraw the Navy from the Persian Gulf?

Yes, definitely, because that [having U.S. ships there] is very provoking and that sends a signal that we're there for the oil, and a lot of people do admit that. We don't care about some of the problems in Africa like we care about the problems in the Middle East, and oil is one of the big factors.

[BubbaBasher]

undeclared pre-emptive wars

Sorry to say you are wrong on both counts. Neither Afganistan or Iraq were pre-emptive and how do you declare war on a group that is not a nation and never signed the Geneva Convention? Regardless of whether Ron Paul follows the Constitution or not, he's still a lunatic nut-jub.

[US at Risk]

And the rest of my remarks, as you obviously didn't take the time to read them before:

He has said that historically the US should not have worked with England to depose Mossadeq. I agree with him on this point. In the present day, he feels that there's a good enough balance of power in the ME to contain Iran. I think this is credible, too, especially if we leave Iraq in good shape.

[bcsco]

I remember when freerepublic was a conservative forum...of course, that was before Jim Robinson embraced undeclared pre-emptive wars.

Free Republic is still a conservative forum; what it isn't is a libertarian forum.

And Jim Robinson has the right to pronounce the tenets Free Republic embraces. You have the right to disassociate yourself with FR should you disagree with those tenets.

Constitutional conservatives have so little in common with freerepublic.

Already answered.

[Jim Robinson]

Hey, you don’t like it here, leave. No one’s begging you to hang around.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Exactly! Love the tagline.

[mnehring]

Not sure where in the world that quote you posted came from, but here is the interview and the 'rest of the remarks'..

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296404,00.html

PAUL: Because — no, I do not fear them as you do, as many do, because they want another war. They want to spread this war. This has been the plan by the neo conservatives to have this major overall — this revamping of the whole Middle East, precisely the reason the al Qaeda is growing. The al Qaeda is growing because of our policy. Our national security is threatened because of our policy. And it makes it much worse.

So I see the Iranians is acting logically and defensively. We've been fighting the Iranians since 1953. We overthrew their government through the CIA in 1953. We were allies with Saddam Hussein in the 1980's. And we encouraged him to invade...

[trisham]

bump

[bcsco]

Here we go again!

[trisham]

So I see the Iranians is acting logically and defensively. We've been fighting the Iranians since 1953. We overthrew their government through the CIA in 1953. We were allies with Saddam Hussein in the 1980's. And we encouraged him to invade...

****************

I don't get this guy.

[Primetimedonna]

LOL! Definite proof that GMTA!! Have a great day! Figure it’s bound to be a better day since we don’t have to listen to the idiot congress critters lecuring the General!! But, sad day too, with Tony’s last presser coming up! ;>)

[Primetimedonna]

LOL! Definite proof that GMTA!! Have a great day! Figure it’s bound to be a better day since we don’t have to listen to the idiot congress critters lecuring the General!! But, sad day too, with Tony’s last presser coming up! ;>)

[Primetimedonna]

LOL! Good one! And so true!!

[Iwo Jima]

That’s offensive.

[SJackson]

He has said that historically the US should not have worked with England to depose Mossadeq. I agree with him on this point. In the present day, he feels that there's a good enough balance of power in the ME to contain Iran. I think this is credible, too, especially if we leave Iraq in good shape.

Why would the balance of power in the middle east be of any concern to Ron Paul. There's no threat to the US there.

Iran, they're clearly no threat to anyone, in fact they're acting logically and rationally. Per your canidate.

And as you know, Pauls position is an immediate withdrawl no matter how many times you misstate it, not leaving when Iraq is "in good shape".

[ex-snook]

Propagandists of the world unite. Imagine someone putting America before world interests. This idea must be destroyed.

"Although described as a libertarian, the physician-politician is a throwback on stands that used to define "conservative" in America -- defense of individual liberties, a minimalist federal government and freedom from foreign entanglements. "I call it a non-interventionist, constitutional foreign policy," he said Tuesday. "We should have a strong national defense. But we should stay out of other countries' internal affairs. Our role is not nation building, and not to be world policeman." "

Sounds like Paul doesn't want the USA to follow England's descent from 'the Sun never sets on the British Empire' to 'God save the Queen'. An increasing number of Americans will agree.