Ron Paul [R-TX] Stands out from the Crowd

YouTube ^ | 20070606 | AnimusLiberti

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Those roadside IEDs never hurt no one. (sarc)

Not if they weren't there...

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

To adhere to Washington’s advise two hundred years ago would not have allowed us to join/create NATO.

She said...as if that was a BAD thing.

Your parsing of words is disingenuous. I suppose you were opposed to our actions against al Qaeda and the Taleban in Afghanistan?

In light of the fact that Congressman Paul voted FOR the actions in Afghanistan, it would appear that you are the one being disingenuous. Perhaps if you actually tried to study the man's voting record, you'd know that.

Using your logic, should Britain have declared war on Germany after Hitler invaded Poland?

Fact of the matter is that the Munich agreement with Germany, forced Britain and France into the war. i believe that there was also that matter of a defense agreement with the Polish Government.

Should Nixon have stood by and not sent tanks and military supplies to Israel during the 72 war with Egypt?

Probably. By the third day, without US military equipment, Israeli reinforcements were beginning to stabalise the battle lines and push back the Syrians on the Golan Hights, and the the Egyptians in the Sinai were being subdued with relentless infantry infiltration of Egyptian SAM sites. You may want to read the history of the Israeli 7^th Armored Brigade, and the Barak brigade further south. That entire war happened because the Isreali government got stupid, and let their guard down, in light of military intelligence to the contrary

Incidentally, the Yom Kippur War was fought on October 6-October 26, 1973

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

What is paradoxical about Arabs (never knew many Iranians) yadayadayada

You know, that if you really lived in Suadi Arabia, and "studied Islamic culture", you'd know that Iranians aren't Arabs.

That said, i do agree that there are many divisions among Islam, not all (or even most of them) religious.

Congressman Paul pointed out the same thing in a recent interview where he wasn't limited to a 30 second response time.

If there are divisions, let them fight it out, it's not our problem. Somebody will end up in charge, and they will sell oil to the US. Nothing will change.

[drpix]

"Except for the fact that it’s a poorly done Photoshop job, yeah, classic, I guess."

"Or something."

---

You should have gone with only the "Or something." You are as good a judge of photoshops as you are of political candidates.

However, I have to credit Ron Paul and his disciples with answering a question I've had for years. Whatever happened to the Kari Krishnas - those shaven-headed, orange-robed, true-believers that used to peddle their delusional reality to travelers at airports across the country?

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

Of course I was aware that Iranians were not Arabs, there are some Arabs in Iran, but a minority. In fact, Persians make up about half the population of Iran. My comment was meant to indicate that I was focusing on Arabs, and not the broader population of Muslims. Your assumption is wrong.

Paul did point this out.

We may need to let them fight it out, but I strongly disagree that it is NOT OUR PROBLEM. Reason: WHO WINS! If Iran takes over most of Iraq, it could result Iran controlling more of the world’s oil and spark a war in the Middle East. Also, since Iran and al Qaeda both seek to destroy us and our way of life, either of their victory would lead to more terrorism, more deaths of Americans and our allies or friends.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

Not going to happen. Nukes are off the table unless someone uses WMD against us, and we can identify the STATE initiating or sponsoring the attack.

[The_Eaglet]

I guess my biggest problem with Ron Paul is that if he isn't talking about the constitution or dealing with a problem not covered by the constitution he doesn't hew to any notable ideology but seems to swing wildly leftward.

His positions on cutting income taxes, stopping judicial tyranny, protecting the personhood of the unborn, protecting the borders, and enforcing immigration laws are hardly "wildly leftward." However, they do differentiate him from Republicans and Democrats who take liberal positions on these issues.

[The_Eaglet]

Bump to #207

[The_Eaglet]

He stands out, and he stands up like a statesman.

[P-40]

Yes, that is well documented.

[P-40]

If there are divisions, let them fight it out, it's not our problem.

It is our problem and very much so. Thinking it was not our problem got us 9/11.

[Durus]

"His positions on cutting income taxes, stopping judicial tyranny, protecting the personhood of the unborn, protecting the borders, and enforcing immigration laws are hardly "wildly leftward."

Those are constitutional positions. Those are not what I was talking about. For example when asked what is the biggest moral dilemma we face do you really think that threatening to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions rank anywhere near the issue of abortion? Or is his position on Iraq and Iran just a way to appeal to "peace at any cost" republicans and democrats?

In the past I have defended Ron Paul (on this forum) until I was blue in the face but his position on Iraq and Iran have made me reconsider. Again where he is on firm constitutional ground he is a champ. When it comes to dealing with foreign powers that wish us dead he is someplace between naive and ignorant.

[Durus]

If an enemy has signed a peace accord and break it repeatedly is that a justification for war under the “just war theory”?

[Durus]

Your claim that every American graduate of the public school system in the last 30-40 years is ignorant of American and World history is a wild exaggeration. I had hoped for more reasonable discourse.

[Durus]

O.K., I'm up for it.
I define "vital national interest" thus; any situation that threatens our lives or freedoms on a national level.
Your turn.

I'll give the easiest reason. Because Iraq was constantly and repeatedly breaking the grounds of the ceasefire and other UN accords, including "oil for food", we had to act or risked facing a larger battle then what we had or now have.

Breaking cease fire agreements is a just reason for war.

[Col Sanders]

Next time think before you post.

Interesting...considering what you're about to say...

Regardless of what you say, Iran elected their leader and therefore they all hold a collective guilt.

"Think before you post?" Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle....

That's an interesting assertion you make there - It's also why terrorists have no moral problem with attacking what we constantly refer to as "innocent civilians."

You see, in their eyes the USA and most other Western countries are representative forms of government which means that our leaders, elected by the people at large, represent the views of all the people. In their eyes, no one here is innocent because we elected the leaders we have - thier actions reflect our wishes - Therefore we're all fair game - To them, every American is a combatant. This is why they have no compunction about strapping bombs to themselves and destroying cafes and restaurants filled with civilians.

You sure you want to go there?

Col Sanders

[The_Eaglet]

For example when asked what is the biggest moral dilemma we face do you really think that threatening to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions rank anywhere near the issue of abortion? Or is his position on Iraq and Iran just a way to appeal to "peace at any cost" republicans and democrats?

Were you trying to infer that Paul's position is that "threatening to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions rank[s] anywhere near the issue of abortion" ? My answer to that is no, and I do not see where Paul has stated this as his position.

There is no denying that his positions on Iraq and Iran have wide appeal to Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and independents.

[Durus]

In the debate when asked "what is the most pressing moral issue facing this country today? And if you’re elected president, how would you address that issue?" he responded with "I think it is the acceptance just recently that we now promote preemptive war."
So I'm not inferring anything that is exactly what he said. As for his opinions concerning the war being popular with gobs of people I don't really care. Being right isn't a popularity contest. When he says we shouldn't have gone to war without a declaration of war I completely agree. When he says it was a mistake to go to war with Iraq I disagree. When he says that we should leave as soon as possible I disagree.

His words "It was a mistake to go, so it’s a mistake to stay. If we made the wrong diagnosis, we should change the treatment. So we’re not making progress there and we should come home. The weapons weren’t there, and we went in under U.N. resolutions. And our national security was not threatened. We’re more threatened now by staying."

I honestly expected more of him and he has dissapointed me on many levels, not the least of which is that I cannot understand any logic behind his position unless it is purely a political triangulation.

[dervish]

“You may want to read the history of the Israeli 7th Armored Brigade, and the Barak brigade further south. That entire war happened because the Isreali government got stupid, and let their guard down, in light of military intelligence to the contrary.”

Actually you are wrong., and Israel and that war is a great example of why one should make a pre-emptive strike.

Israel knew it was going to be attacked and waited so that they would not be criticized by the world for a pre-emptive strike. Kissinger warned them to let the Arabs attack first. It almost resulted in the annihilation of Israel and caused the government of Golda Meir and to fall and rightly IMO besmirched the rep of Moshe Dayan.

“Some of Meir’s advisers urged a preemptive strike, but the prime minister assured Keating that Israel would not launch a pre-emptive attack; she wanted to “avoid bloodshed” and, no doubt, the opprobrium associated with striking first. “

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/73wardocs.html#II

“the advance warnings of a possible Egyptian-Syrian attack received by the Israelis and Kissinger’s advice to Prime Minister Gold Meir to avoid preemptive action (documents 7, 9, 10, and 18)”

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/73wardocs.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=qlB9W_jq2vAC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=yom+kippur+war+golda+meir+preemption&source=web&ots=Z16-H7XtyQ&sig=pzwpt8QQjYqtrw0tCB7-Sn7sdas

[cubreporter]

See my post #76