Posted on 10/04/2007 8:43:18 AM PDT by traviskicks
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul seems to believe that both major parties are wrong on most things most of the time, most of all about fiscal prudence and foreign policy. That's why, though he has Powerball odds or worse of winning the presidency, it's refreshing and thought-provoking to have the 71-year-old surgeon in the race.
Paul, a five-term Texas congressman, ran as the Libertarian Party's candidate for president in 1988, but he's on the national stage this time because he's running as a Republican. He is passionate about his belief in small government, fidelity to the Constitution, faith in the free market and fear of foreign interventionism. He backs a return to the gold standard and the abolishment of the income tax. He is often marginalized as an extremist. But he is not an angry man, and that's part of his considerable charm.
Paul met with the Monitor's editorial board yesterday. He is charismatic in the way television doctors of the 1960s like Marcus Welby were. He seems incapable of not saying exactly what he believes, and he's the only Republican candidate to call for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The diversity of opinion he brings to his party is healthy and provides anti-war Republicans with a choice.
Paul smiles often and cuts to the quick of political folly. He was, he says, in the Air Force during the Cuban missile crisis, when nuclear warheads 90 miles offshore were pointed at America. That crisis was defused with diplomacy, he said. Now, politicians are talking about going to war with Iran and "hysterical over a weapon that doesn't exist."
Paul adamantly believes that it's both arrogant and counterproductive for the world's only superpower to meddle in the affairs of other nations and engage in nation-building. It makes Americans less safe, he says, because occupying another country turns some of its most desperate and troubled residents into suicidal terrorists. It's a point that few Republican candidates are willing to make.
Paul fears the loss of freedoms at home more than he does terrorist attacks. The prescriptions he dispenses are common sense and fidelity to the Constitution. The United States began going astray about a century ago and then rapidly under President Woodrow Wilson, he said. He believes in market solutions to most problems but says he is not running to undo the welfare state. The needy will receive care, he said.
Paul can simplify problems in a way that must give his Republican rivals fits. On Iraq and the use of military force as an instrument of foreign policy he said: "We're taxed to blow up their bridges, then we're taxed to rebuild their bridges. Meanwhile, our bridges are falling down."
There is nothing to be gained by staying in Iraq, Paul said. America left Vietnam and it became a friendly trading partner. No one knows what the outcome of leaving would be, but in time, the same thing could happen in Iraq.
At times, Paul seems to be campaigning on issues history discarded a century ago. But he does so with so much wit, concern for personal freedom and an absence of malice and ego that, rather than put people off who disagree, he makes them think. That's why his candidacy contributes so much to the race.
I don't think I need a lecture on paranoia from you.
To: traviskicks
Paul fears the loss of freedoms at home more than he does terrorist attacks.
I whole heartedly agree with him on that.
6 posted on 10/04/2007 10:52:36 AM CDT by c-b 1
(Reporting from behind enemy lines, in occupied AZTLAN.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
How many of you are left here? I'm hoping it is down to zero by weeks end.
Are you guys suckers for punishment are what?
sorry you got involved in this, lol, as you might imagine the thugish reaction of some in this crowd surely accomplishes the opposite of their intentions, which is why it is worth pinging them to these threads. :)
gl with whoever your candidate is.
This COULD be true, because so far This DUMMIE POLL is showing that 33% of the DUmmies would pick him over Hitlery!
Of course, ONLY about 50 DUmmies have voted so far, but if the trends continues...
For a DUmmie to vote for a "Republican" candidate over Hitlery, MAN... That's gotta say somethin' about his "Republican" status!
Perhaps his idea wouldn't work. I don't know much about them, except that a long time has elapsed since their last use.
But I have no reason to believe that he cynically advocated the letters of marque, knowing in advance they wouldn't work.
The reaction of some here reminds me of Monty Python's Flying Circus.
gl with whoever your candidate is.
Thanks, I haven't decided on one yet, a lot can happen between now, and the primarys.
Our bridges are falling down?
Drudge (linked), MSNBC, ABC, CNN and others all talked about Ron Paul surprising fund raising effort in the 3rd quarter. He now has enough money to run a decent media campaign in all the early primary states.
Fantastic!
Then maybe that is enough for the Ron Paul anti-war nutballs who post Ron Paul crap here to take it somewhere else?
I can't wait to report to you the primary results from my state of Texas. It will be especially sweet since it is the suicide monkey's own state.
A brief precis:
At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, there were four truly effective navies in the world: the British, Dutch, French and Spanish.
One of the things that the US Constitution specifically authorized and which the Founders saw as very necessary (the Federalist discusses this at length) was the creation of an American navy so the new republic would not be at the mercy of powerful European navies that could blockade US ports and harass US commercial shipping.
However, the Founders were not dreamers: they knew that it would take years for the US to establish a navy that could hold its own against any one of the Great Powers, let alone challenge them.
Of course, even the Great Powers were hamstrung by technology: once a ship had sailed onto the high seas, there was no way for them to communicate with one another, and there was no way for their navies to be everywhere. To supplement their naval reach, the governments of Europe had begun issuing letters of marque and reprisal centuries before. Essentially, the captain and crew of private commercial vessels could obtain these letters from a government that wanted to increase the size of its fleet without spending money to build new warships. The letters entitled their bearer to essentially act as a pirate - the most famous bearer of such letters was Sir Walter Raleigh. The bearers would prey upon the shipping of the issuer of the letters' enemies. British letter bearers would harass Spanish or French shipping, etc. If the bearers were captured by the enemy, they could claim to be prisoners of war subject to the laws of war and not common criminals. If the bearers were captured attacking the shipping of one country while in a third country's territorial waters, they could claim to be acting on behalf of the letter-issuing government and therefore subject to deportation, not prosecution or worse, extradition to the country whose shipping they were attacking.
The letter bearers got to keep some or all of the goods and vessels they captured, depending on the terms they negotiated.
The fledging US government authorized such letters in the Constitution as a way to cheaply raise and supplement a fleet while building a national navy.
During the Barbary Wars and the War of 1812, a good number of letters were issued.
But in 1856, the Great Powers abolished such letters at the Treaty Of Paris - which meant that the world's great navies would henceforth uniformly consider such letter bearers pirates and summarily hang them when found.
As a result it was not worthwhile for any country to issue such letters, as they were unenforceable and carried no protection.
In the wake of the Geneva Convention they are now completely useless.
In any case, Bin Laden is not be found on the high seas.
But I have no reason to believe that he cynically advocated the letters of marque, knowing in advance they wouldn't work.
I do, since he already voted to authorize War in Afghanistan before he floated this silly idea.
I make no secret of the fact that I like Ron Paul’s record in congress, but he fails to convince me that he is capable of executing the responsibilities of the office of president with his glib hip shots on Iraq.
I’m not even saying that it is impossible to withdraw from Iraq, but doing so would require a willingness to take other politically difficult actions, like rounding up all muslims in this country, or even nuking Teheran if they fail to back down. I don’t think that he has the stomach for such actions.
This is one GOP Candidate I despise.
All historical analysis and projections of the future suffer from the lack of time machines. Bush himself said:
For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and much oppression, so I have changed this policy.
Bush looked at our ME involvement prior to 9/11 and found it deficient. How could he know that without a time machine?
When Bush says free nations tolerated ME oppression, one can add that that they also aided oppression by alliances of expediency with oppressive ME regimes.
IOW, "blowback".
Re your pertinent point that Paul "already voted to authorize War in Afghanistan before he floated this silly idea", he didn't see the two as mutually exclusive:
Today, we have a new type of deadly piracy, in the high sky over our country. The solution the founders came up with under these circumstances was for Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal. This puts the responsibility in the hands of Congress to direct the President to perform a task with permission to use and reward private sources to carry out the task, such as the elimination of Osama bin Laden and his key supporters. This allows narrow targeting of the enemy. This effort would not preclude the president's other efforts to resolve the crisis, but if successful would preclude a foolish invasion of a remote country with a forbidding terrain like Afghanistan- a country that no foreign power has ever conquered throughout all of history.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr092501.htm
In any case, Bin Laden is not be found on the high seas.
Good point. The meaning of LM&R would apparently have expanded with Congress' adoption of Paul's suggestion.
Perhaps "bounty" fits better the reasoning of Paul:
Conventional armed forces are ill-suited to tracking down international terrorists. Our military invasion of Afghanistan undoubtedly has scattered al-Qaida throughout the Middle East and Europe. Marque and reprisal would create an incentive for individuals close to bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. This method in effect places a bounty on the heads of international terrorists, who often travel between countries, melt into civilian populations, or hide in remote areas. The goal is to avail ourselves of the knowledge and expertise of private parties, especially given the lack of western intelligence in many of the countries likely to harbor bin Laden. Marque and reprisal could turn the tables on the terrorists, forcing them to live as marked men. Terrorist should fear us, not the other way around.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/111/will-we-bring-bin-laden-to-justice/
"What is the blowback of not naming mainstream Islam itself as a source of 'oppression in the Middle East' ?
All good points to ponder.
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.