Posted on 06/03/2007 6:32:10 PM PDT by The Oak
Lately, there has been a growing movement on Free Republic to support the Presidential candidacy of Ron Paul. His supporters claim that he is the only true conservative candidate, and that Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Fred Thompson, etc. are not conservatives. While Paul may have some good ideas regarding domestic issues, his foreign policy ideas are downright dangerous. Here are ten questions for him that I would like to see answered.
Jill Valentine challenged supporters of Ron Paul to answer a few questions about where Ron Paul stands on the issues.
I worked for Ron Paul as "Political Director/Scheduler" for about ten years. I also answered his mail and like many of his supporters are in awe of his wisdom and consistency when dealing with policy on any issue.
I'm going to answer these in my own tone but with his answers as I've given them many times before.
1. Afghanistan Question: We all know your position on Iraq. But what is your position on the war in Afghanistan? Do you demand an immediate withdrawal of all troops there? Do you believe that Taliban guerrillas should be allowed to operate unopposed? Do you believe that it is morally wrong for us to bomb al-Qaeda, since, as you said, "our policies brought about 9-11?" Answer: He voted "yes" to go into Afghanistan and find al-Qaeda operatives and bring them to justice. He also favors going into Pakistan as intel targets that country as the host to bin Laden and many of his training camps. Pakistan has also developed nuclear weaponry. Why don't we see them as a threat and why have we disbanded the CIA bin Laden project?
2. Navy/Aircraft Carriers Question: You have expressed support for withdrawing U.S. Navy ships from the coast of Iran, and for withdrawing U.S. troops from foreign soil. Where do you want these ships to go? Do you want them all to be permanently kept within U.S. territorial waters, even the submarines? What about our aircraft carriers? Will you scuttle them or sell them to the Red Chinese?
Answer: Ron Paul was in the USAF. He is one of the few veterans in Congress. Why should we have any of our military crafts near Iran when we know that al-Qaeda operatives are right here in the good ole USA? Yet, we have deployed our reserves to BFE and have closed many of our defensive air and naval bases in the homeland. You call that security? We have 460,000 troops in 144 countries all over the world but have left ourselves open to attack right here. Why do you think there were no F-16 fighters intercepting those terrorist flights on 9-11. We need those troops ready to defend us, here and now!
3. Blaming America Question: You have accused the U.S. of bringing the al-Qaeda 9-11 attacks upon ourselves because we "bombed Iraq for 10 years." Yet, in your opposition to the Iraq war, you claimed that there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq. How can you claim that al-Qaeda attacked us because of Iraq?
Answer: We did bomb Iraq during the 10 years we had sanctions. The Muslim community attacked in defens of a Muslim neighbors like we did when Germany tried to take over our European allies during WW2.
However, Ron Paul did not blame America, the citizens. He blamed idiot American politicians for a failed foreign policy that caters to the corporations who make billions on war. Do you know who initially lobbied to go into Iraq? Let me clue you in. The corporations that the DOD call the PVL, or preferred vendor list were the initiators. The major money makers in this war are Big Oil, Bell Helicopter, Stewart/Stevenson, Boeing, Halliburton, Kellog, Brown and Root. I was there when the war lobby buzzards were circling and it makes me sick!
4. Frivolous Anti-Gun Lawsuits Question: You claim to be pro-gun, yet you voted against protecting the gun industry from frivolous, politically motivated lawsuits. These lawsuits blame innocent gun manufacturers for the actions of criminals. You say you don't want the gun industry to have special protection. What's wrong with giving an industry the protection it legally, morally, and logically deserves? And it shouldn't be unique to the gun industry, either - if some weasel lawyer sued a car manufacturer because a nut ran over a bunch of people with a car, I'd give the automobile industry protection too. Answer: This is a good one Jill. Whenever a bill sounds so wonderful, be sure and read the fine print. Ron Paul and his staff actually read the legislation, unlike many of the other members. What the NRA didn't tell you about that bill is that it required every gun manufacturer to include gun locks or the lawsuit ban was null and void. If you ever owned a gun, you know that locks render them useless for defensive purposes. It also puts another tax on the buyer, passed down from the manufacturer.
Also, Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate, tax or subsidize any industry. When they do, the industry suffers i.e. medical, agriculture etc. etc. etc.
5. Parental Notification Question: Ron You claim to be pro-life, but you voted against a bill that would require parents to be notified if a minor crossed state lines to get an abortion. Please explain this. Answer: Paul is pro-life. He favors the constitutional remedy to the abortion problem by over turning Roe vs. Wade and giving regulation back to the states. Congress has the power to over turn Supreme Court ruling. Why wasn’t that done with our Republican majority in power? Ron Paul was the only one that submitted legislation to do that.
However, according to the Constitution Article 1 Sec. 4, Congress does not have jurisdiction to legislate enforcement of any state mandate. The reason federal power and funding is so out of hand is that for every problem, we think the feds have to vote another law and an agency to enforce it. If we overturned Roe v. Wade, it would out of the feds hands.
6. Supporting the Troops Question: How can you claim to support the troops when you're constantly voting against military appropriations bills? And don't give me that tired old "it's all pork" line. Body armor for our troops is not pork.
Answer: Did you know that you can go to Wal-Mart and buy a small refrigerator for $99? Yet, our military pays about $22,000 for the same frig? That hammer that the DOD used to pay $20 for is almost $400 in today’s war effort. We pay KBR which is a “preferred vendor” of the DOD about $250,000 for exterminators in Iraq, yet our young enlisted men make an average of $25,000 per year. You say it isn’t pork. I’ll tell you what it is. It is criminal for us to legislate billions to the global war corporations and call it defense spending, while our young men are sent over seas. Then, when they come home, we put them in nasty medical facilities.
7. National Guard on the Border Question: You claim that you will protect our borders. How can you say this when your defunding of the military will result in a lack of funding for the National Guard troops guarding the borders? Answer: We don’t have National Guard on the border. We’ve sent them all over to guard the Iraqi/Syrian border. Silly girl.
8. Blood on Whose Hands Question: Who do you think has more blood on their hands regarding the victims of 9-11 - al-Qaeda or the United States of America? Straight answer from the horse's mouth, please. Answer: The answer would require extensive research because al-Qaeda has existed for approximately 50 years. They began rebellion against the western world when the US government built 14 permanent military bases on the Saudi Peninsula, property that the Muslim world calls – MECCA! We did this with permission from the Saudi government to protect our oil interests. The Islamic people from around the world didn’t like it at all. Some say that we have initiated all the terror attacks by Islamic extremists for creating what our CIA reports call “blowback”. This is in retaliation for our occupation of their holy land. Read the CIA 9-11 reports.
9. Liberal Moon bats Question: If you claim to be not only *a* conservative, but the "one true conservative," why did you go on liberal Bill Maher's show and bask in the praise of his moonbat audience? And why are you so popular on extreme left-wing websites like Democratic Underground? If you do not want the support of these people, why have you not condemned them? Answer: The policy of peace and prosperity invites support of all races, parties, gender and talk show hosts. If you are an American and you have a media outlet, it would be smart for a politician who needs your support, to recognize your show. Especially if you don’t get the big money from corporate warmongers PACs like the frontrunners from both parties all do.
10. Foreign Policy Difference
Question: Please explain, in 100 words or less, how your foreign policy differs from that of Dennis Kucinich.
Answer: Dennis Kucinich believes that the US should belong to global peace initiative through the United Nations. Ron Paul believes that the United Nations is just one more layer of government of whom the United States should not give money, enforcement or allegiance. We sited enforcement of 17 UN regulations in the legislation that gave Bush to go to war in Iraq.
Kucinich believes that social initiative should be the responsibility of the federal government. Ron Paul believes in a free market without regulation, tax or subsidy for any industry that is not constitutionally mandated.
I hope that this will enlighten you as to where Ron Paul stands on these issues. I know that most people don’t have first hand knowledge of where he stands on the issues. I am one of the lucky ones and I want everyone in this country to know that if we as a people don’t elect Ron Paul as our president, America will no longer be the home of the free and the brave. America will be the home of debt and the slave.
Wow! That’s some 1st post. You’re not atroll by any chance, are you? I’ll believe me whatever you tell me.
Ron Paul is an idiot. On 911 our world changed. A culmination 8 years of failed Clinton policies in dealing with Terror threats came to roost. Only one man had the courage to take action, to go on the offensive. The man who was President on that day takes it personally. There are no hidden conspiracies about going after Saddam the fact is simple the lesson of 911 was that you could no longer wait until such plans came to fruition you must act before the threat materializes. Saddam was a threat. A sponsor of Terror, an enemy of the U.S. not one of those facst is in question. Had George W. Bush allowed Saddam to continue to game the UN and eventually sponsor an attack whether in league with Al-Qaeda or not, on the U.S. homeland well exactly what would people like Ron Paul and all these stupid liberal idiots be saying then... See he should have acted we hate Bush... only then I would be on that side too.
Those are good answers to those questions. Too bad many here at Free Republic won’t take the time to think and will react in their usual kneejerk, Ron Paul bashing manner.
I read recently that most people don’t bother to think. They just like to rationalize post facto their emotion-based beliefs. You will find that a lot here.
Excellent answers! Better than those I posted on the original thread.
What always strikes me as strange are questions like #4 and #5 coming from someone who, I’d have supposed, must know what federalism is all about.
And of course non-intervention is not the same thing as isolationism. In addition, Rep. Paul has repeatedly gone on record in favor of a strong national defense. Saddam was not going to attack us - that assertion makes no sense. Changing regimes does nothing but waste money and lives - it certainly doesn’t do anything to stop diffuse non-state groups from striking again. Those who say 9-11 changed things are right - we can no longer take a Cold War approach to fighting an enemy that isn’t a traditional nation state. We need to curtail our presence and saber-rattling all around the globe and focus on securing ourselves at home.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who takes the dangers that America faces - everything from manipulations of the money supply to deficit spending to terrorism - seriously enough to investigate their roots and talk about real solutions instead of empty slogans.
http://republicanrenaissance.blogspot.com
You didn't really answer the question. Does Paul or does he not favor exiting Afghanistan now? If not, why not? Because Al Qaeda is there? But Al Qaeda is in Iraq. That's the point of the question, for me anyway.
[2] Ron Paul was in the USAF. He is one of the few veterans in Congress. Why should we have any of our military crafts near Iran when we know that al-Qaeda operatives are right here in the good ole USA?
Um, even if you're right what exactly are, say, aircraft carriers going to do against al-Qaeda operatives in the USA? Are you going to park the aircraft carriers near Texas in the Gulf of Mexico, launch jets, and bomb the operatives in Denver or Cleveland?
Besides, I thought Paul's big thing was the Constitution. Doesn't the Constitution have anything to say about using the military domestically?
[3] We did bomb Iraq during the 10 years we had sanctions. The Muslim community attacked in defens of a Muslim neighbors like we did when Germany tried to take over our European allies during WW2.
Okay, this is just a twisted answer, and I'll give Paul the benefit of the doubt that his thinking isn't as perverted as yours is. Do you realize you just compared Al Qaeda to the U.S./1941 and have asserted that Al Qaeda are somehow "defenders" of Iraq?
Al Qaeda, for your information, is currently engaged in slaughtering innocent civilians in Iraq by the hundreds. Osama bin Laden claims to be the "defender" of all Muslims. This is because he wants to take them over in a Muslim Empire. We are not obligated to accept his claim, and it is incredibly naive and ignorant to do so. Particularly given the actual actions of Al Qaeda.
[8] The answer would require extensive research because al-Qaeda has existed for approximately 50 years.
You don't know what you are talking about here. Al Qaeda has existed since, at most, the aftermath of the ejection of the Soviets from Afghanistan. It probably wasn't even called "al Qaeda" till a few years later than that. (There is even some dispute as to whether "Al Qaeda" as such exists as a coherent, centralized organization.) First press mentions of "Al Qaeda" date to the mid/late 90s. 50 years??? Sorry no.
They began rebellion against the western world when the US government built 14 permanent military bases on the Saudi Peninsula, property that the Muslim world calls – MECCA!
The US government had a military presence in Saudi Arabia at the request of her government.
I don't know what "property that the Muslim world calls - MECCA!" is supposed to add to the discussion. Yes, Mecca (which is not only what "the Muslim world" calls it, it's what everyone calls it - it's a city, and the name of the city is Mecca) is located in Saudi Arabia. So what? Again, we had military there at their request, to defend against Saddam Hussein.
Anyway, you're so far afield of the original question (who has more 9/11 blood on their hands) that this almost feels unfair. You're so busy tracing Al Qaeda back 50 years and writing Mecca in ALL CAPS that there's no indication you actually understand the question.
The Islamic people from around the world didn’t like it at all. [US military in Saudi Arabia]
Some Islamic people didn't like it. Others probably didn't care very much. But only a very small minority of them, even if they didn't like it, translated that dislike into murdering random American civilians. Those people were the 19 hijackers and several others involved in the conspiracy. And for your information, that's the actual answer to the question of who has 9/11 blood on their hands. None of this other stuff you're trying to bring up is relevant.
Suppose I don't want you to go to McDonald's. Then you go to McDonald's and buy a shake. Then I kill you. Who has that blood on his hands, me for killing you? or you for going to McDonald's when I didn't want you to? By your logic, you'd be the one to blame, and you'd have your own blood on your hands, it seems.
Some say that we have initiated all the terror attacks by Islamic extremists for creating what our CIA reports call “blowback”.
True, admittedly. And those people are logical and moral idiots.
This:
“We have 460,000 troops in 144 countries all over the world but have left ourselves open to attack right here. Why do you think there were no F-16 fighters intercepting those terrorist flights on 9-11. We need those troops ready to defend us, here and now!”
This:
“Then, when they come home, we put them in nasty medical facilities.”
And this:
“Answer: We don’t have National Guard on the border. We’ve sent them all over to guard the Iraqi/Syrian border. Silly girl.”
Pretty well capped it for me. The man is way off base.
I regret that I skimmed this post rather hastily the first time, and now after reading it through more carefully I noticed a couple of glaring mistakes:
In your answer to #2 you linked our troop commitments abroad to the implied unavailability of F-16s to intercept the hijacked aircraft. I don’t buy the link or the implication that there weren’t any F-16s on hand. Shaky ground there.
In #8, you said that al-Qaeda has existed for 50 yrs. and that their rebellion began in response to our 14 bases in Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda wasn’t formed until 1988 - even if you’re thinking of bin Laden himself, he only started organizing fighters in 1979. And US troops weren’t stationed in Saudi Arabia until 1990. Additionally, I think the 14 bases you’re thinking of are the ones we’re planning to build in Iraq - I don’t know how many were in Saudi Arabia.
I also think you’re straying dangerously close to providing moral justification for al-Qaeda’s attacks in the first paragraph of your answer to #3. It’s one thing to talk about what fed into the terrorists’ motivations, but I’d be careful about making comparisons.
I agree with the spirit of what you’ve posted, but please take care to do the necessary fact-checking and choose your words cautiously. Your ability to persuade people depends on it. You can also do an inordinate amount of damage to the cause if you’re not careful. Rep. Paul isn’t here to give his own answers, many of which I’ve heard him elaborate differently.
One wonders why you would "agree with the spirit of" a poster who is so factually inaccurate and on many issues doesn't appear to know what he's talking about.
I'm actually entertaining the idea that the original post is a spoof meant to draw out diehard Ron Paul supporters into defending obviously idiocy because they "agree with the spirit of" it.... After all, if it were such a spoof, the post wouldn't be much different.
I think the post makes many good and correct points, while at the same time suffering from a few inaccuracies and weaknesses in argument - some of which you pointed out. I also think the author failed to address some of those original questions head-on. But that said, I don't think it necessarily diminishes the validity of the perspective. I just think it could have been backed up better and more credibly. I jumped to praise too quickly, before I'd fully digested it, but oh well.
With regard to the foreign policy questions, it's incontrovertible that our history of interventionist action in the Middle East has fanned the fires of hatred. Does that mean the terrorists are right and justified in their actions? No, and Ron Paul has certainly never said as much. But willfully disregarding the potential repercussions of our policies, and refusing to look at the pathology of radicalizing muslims and catalyzing militant activity, is foolish and not in our security interests. That's the larger point here. That's the spirit with which I agree.
There were other questions that I thought were handled better.
My own answers are posted here.
This is an important discussion to have, and I think tossing in the word "idiocy" so abruptly is detrimental to that.
What interventionist actions, please? This is the part no one in the Paul for President campaign has deigned to explain.
I was Dr. Paul's New York State campaign manager in 1988, when he ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate. He's a good man, generally, and given his enormous respect for the Constitution he'd probably be a fine domestic president, but I don't get this bit about American interventions in the Middle East. Apart from the 1991 Gulf War, which we fought to liberate Kuwait and protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein, and the two operations going on today in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can't think of an incident in which American armed forces have done battle in the Middle East since 1945.
Those of us who'd like to retain our good will toward Dr. Paul would appreciate a clarification. Oh, by the way, to call one pole of a dispute "incontrovertible" isn't exactly cricket; it's like saying "sit down and shut up; I don't want to argue this any more."
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Eternity Road
Of course it does. Surely having several gross inaccuracies, weaknesses of argument, and failing to address some questions diminishes the validity of the perspective being expressed.
With regard to the foreign policy questions, it's incontrovertible that our history of interventionist action in the Middle East has fanned the fires of hatred.
What "history of interventionist action"? Suppose I claim that, on the contrary, we've been too passive. Look at Iran for example; how have we "intervened" in Iran in the past 30 years? Many of the other cases often cited (aid to Egypt? defending Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein?) are cases where we are helping or aiding Muslims. To accept the notion that we've engaged in a bunch of "interventionist action" is to buy, lock stock & barrel, the Osama side of the story. It embodies a value judgment, one that can be disputed. My problem with the Paul POV is not so much that he is "factually wrong" as that he accepts and promulgates the Osama value judgment of our actions while pretending to objectivity and detachment. Hogwash.
But willfully disregarding the potential repercussions of our policies, and refusing to look at the pathology of radicalizing muslims and catalyzing militant activity, is foolish and not in our security interests.
Who's "disregarding" potential repercussions? Personally, I regarded them fully, and formed my positions with that knowledge in mind.
Who's "refusing to look at" the pathology of radicalizing Muslims? Maybe I disagree with Ron Paul about how militant activity is "catalyzed" and/or how to deal with that. Is that ok?
There is something tremendously condescending about insisting that anyone who disagrees with you on something is disregarding, or not thinking about, the issue.
For example, during the late 1950s in protection of American oil interests, we sent CIA operatives into Iran in support and protection of the Shah. The Muslims, who hated the Shah for giving loyalty to western money and power, deposed him in favor of the religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini. The new government was strongly anti-American, and in the late 1970s they took hostages because we hospitalized and hosted the Shah to protect him from trial in Iran.
There are several more examples like the one above where we, the US, tried to protect our interests by “intervening” in other national affairs and it ended up back in our faces.
Like Ronald Reagan said after he pulled our troops out of Lebanon in the 80s, we don’t understand the mindset of the region. They are a tribal and territorial people. The tribes have been warring for thousands of years over familial territory. Like brothers who were previously feuding, they have banded together as a Muslim family to fight against intruders.
Because they are willing to travel to other countries and blow themselves up, we have two choices - either wipe them off the face of the earth, which is inhumane and unnecessary, or respect the wishes of the people in their own region and stop imposing our will on them.
Then provide, them, please. I hope they're clearer-cut; the matter of the Shah is open to dispute. The accounts of his rule over Iran that I've read make him sound like an enlightened and beneficent despot who was reasonably popular with most of his subjects.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Eternity Road
That should go hand in hand with repealing all gun control legislation so that if any of them do come here looking to start something, they can face a population with enough firepower to deal with them. But it's not like that's at all likely in this sissified land.
Cue the Stuck Mojo "Open Season" and tell CAIR to go to hell.
Absolutely, MichiganConservative,
If we’d had guns in all the cockpits there would have been no 9-11.
Talk softly and carry a big stick still works, right?
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.