Is Ron Paul Good For The GOP?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/ ^ | 2009-10-21

[MrEdd]

Ron Paul, from his newsletter - giving his view of the war in '91.

Most of the "especially equipped tanks" he refers to were A9 Ace armored bulldozers. And the meager resistance he refers to was merely ineffective. Their fire bounced off the armor - which after all is why we put armor on them to begin with. They could have just surrendered, but they were there to inflict casualties on the infantry that came in using the bulldozers. after the second day they pretty much surrendered whenever troops with bulldozers showed up.

Ron Paul opposed this, but as one of the Marines that was over there I thought it was efficient and cost effective.

Ron Paul defended his statement in interviews at the time and this was an issue that is not minor, not forgivable, and not going away.

[MNJohnnie]

Yes, Paul is good for the GOP.

When we decide to start taking political advice from our enemies we will give you a call Andrew, until then do not waste our time with your ignorant baltherings.

[MNJohnnie]

We need a new 2rd party.

If Conservatives and Libertarians cannot even get organized enough to take back the GOP, what insanity makes you folks think you will be able to organize any political party that will be anything other then a temporary political temper-tantrum?

It seems the Conservative/Libertarians are hell bent on repeating the the same mistakes the Perotistas did with their "Reform" party in the 1990s.

[MNJohnnie]

As has been explained to you a few hundred times before.

Read below.

Past time you learn to live in the real world rather then the fantasy land you Paulbots manufacture to avoid having to question your god-let’s less then sane Isolationist dogmas.

Why Iraq

One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the “Anti War movement”) of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US’s National “News” media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.

Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.

To start with Saddam’s Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it’s diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it’s military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.

The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.

Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The “Holy” soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).

Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.

There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.

Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect” to understand. It’s so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like “No Blood for Oil” or “We support the Troops, bring them home” or dumbest of all “We are creating terrorists” then to actually THINK.

Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their “god” will reward them for killing us.

So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido.

Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming “We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad” and recruit the next round of “holy warriors”. Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it -

If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

Winston Churchill

[Nephi]

Well, at least this reminder of intolerance isn’t immediately under freerepublic’s appeal for donations on this very thread.

[randomhero97]

Jeebus, you two are the epitome of cognitive dissonance.

[randomhero97]

Think about it, though, if the US actually drilled for oil in it's own reserves and built more refineries would we even need to have any connection whatsoever with any ME nation especially the Saudi's?

We finance the very terrorism that's used against us. Self-reliance with resources should be our primary national security policy. There's nothing isolationist about that.

[traviskicks]

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

If you believe your own tag line, you would see that it is the libertarians and libertarian leaning republicans that work to achieve the goal of smaller government, most Republicans, ie George Bush and CO tend to grow not shrink government. (example, Medicare drug boondoggle)

[traviskicks]

lol, i haven’t donated to FR since that all that nonsense transpired during the Republican primaries.

[specsaregood]

Feel free to disagree with him; but for the 20+ years he has been in congress has done everything possible to fight on the side of liberty and freedom for the American people. As well as voted against nearly all forms of growth in the federal government.

Like I said, you may disagree with him; but at least isn’t trying to rule you. I happen to like a statesman that defaults to the freedom-choice on every vote.

[Reagan Man]

If someone wants to promote fiscal responsibility, go for it. If someone wants to promote a foreign policy lunatic like Ronpaul, I'll have plenty to say.

Btw, since Murry Rothbard founded modern libertarianism, a major goal of the libertarian effort has been directed at a return to small constitutional government, circa 1787. Some of us see that goal as anarchy.

Conservatives want limited government that starts with limiting the welfare state and reigns in all spending and lowers taxes for all working Americans and business owners. A more realistic objective compared to the goals of libertarianism.

[Reagan Man]

One more time.

Ronpaul’s foreign policy agenda is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook. Paul is an anti-war pacifist and a military and political isolationist. He wants all American military troops brought home and wants to see America retreat from the world. Remember, Paul's heroes are Rosa Parks, MLKingjr and Gandhi. While he trashes Reagan and Lincoln.

Paul is a loon. PERIOD!

[specsaregood]

Actually his heroes are more like Ludwig Von Mises, Rothbard and Jefferson. He admires those others you named for their peaceful civil disobedience.

And even then you can’t dispute what I said. EVERY vote he has made in washington over 20+ years has been pro-freedom for the American people and for less government.

[Clintonfatigued]

American political parties that succeed are coalitions. The Libertarian movement is a legitimate part of the Republican coalition and Ron Paul has every right to lead that faction if they wish for him to do so.

[Reagan Man]

Three heroes of Ron Paul are Rosa Parks, MLKingjr and Gandhi. He may others too.

Did you ever read what that nutbar Murry Rothbard said about the Reagan Presidency? Read it, Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy by Murray N. Rothbard

>>>>>And even then you can’t dispute what I said.

Sorry, Ronpaul is no statesman. Far far from it. They call him Doctor No because he votes against everything. He voted against the Iraq War resolution and he voted against funding the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. When was the last time Ronpaul voted to protect America by voting "FOR" a Defense Appropriations bill? And what about all those votes by Ronpaul for ear marks and pork barrel spending.

Like I said, Paul is a loon. I'm not alone in my thinking.

"Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!"
~ Jim Robinson, Sept, 30, 2007

[specsaregood]

None of those votes against nationbuilding in Iraq or Afghanistan have anything to do with what I said which was:
“EVERY vote he has made in washington over 20+ years has been pro-freedom for the American people and for less government.”

Give him a straight “defense” appropriations bill that and not doubt he would vote for it. He just isn’t into nation building and neither was the Republican party just 10 years ago.

Please how me the votes for earmarks that he has cast? He submits earmarks because that is his role as a representative and his consituents ask him to submit them, but he votes against them.

[Reagan Man]

Your logic is seriously flawed. You want to judge Ronpaul on your terms. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The role of a House Representative includes both domestic and foreign policy issues. Making excuses for Ronpaul's rotten voting record on foreign policy issues doesn't help make your case on his domestic voting record. Paul consistantly votes in opposition to American interests abroad. Sometimes he votes along with the Democrats in opposition to defending freedom.

Not everything is tied to nation building, which I oppose too. Still, a strong military and national defense capability, means a strong America. Its a strong foreign policy agenda that keeps America safe and secure from all our enemies, both foreign and domestic. Ronpaul can't even vote to fund our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is despicable. And he opposes every annual Defense Appropriations bill, year after year after year...

Freedom isn't free and Ronpaul is no patriot.

You're right on the earmarks. Paul inserts the pork barrel earmarks, then votes against them. Which is rank hypocrisy, because he knows they will still pass. And Paultards taking such a principled behavior makes them hypocrites as well.

I see you didn't comment on Murry Rothbard's scathing attack on Reagan.

Ronpaul has even attacked Reagan himself. At one point telling the Dallas Morning News, Reagan was a "dramatic failure" as President. "I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration". Reagan was "a failure, yes, in, in many ways". Transcript of Paul's remark's on Meet the Press. Also, see Youtube video of Paul on MTP.

[rabscuttle385]

Paul is an anti-war pacifist and a military and political isolationist.

First, if Paul were a pacifist, he would advocate against the use of war in all circumstances. However, he has argued for "a strong national defense" (those are his words), so clearly he is not a pacifist.

Second, if Paul were an isolationist, he would advocate against both interventionism and free trade. However, he is on the record as supporting free trade, so clearly he is not an isolationist. Furthermore, he has not argued that the U.S. should shut its borders, cease trading with other nations, and withdraw entirely from the world, as you allege.

He wants all American military troops brought home and wants to see America retreat from the world.

Please tell me why you feel that it is necessary to force U.S. citizens and businesses to subsidize the defense of foreign States that then turn around and compete with them.

Please tell me why you feel that it is necessary for U.S. citizens to die fighting the wars of others, in distant lands, and under the auspices of the United Nations and other internationalist organizations that directly undermine the sovereignty of the United States.

Please also explain why the United States must be compelled to borrow trillions from potentially hostile foreign States, only to then turn around and provide for their defense.

While he trashes Reagan and Lincoln.

Lincoln was a statist, so it's no surprise that you and the rest of the authoritarians/neo-cons would love him.

Why don't you stop bleating the neo-con anti-American, anti-Constitution, globalist talking points and start thinking for yourself, Reagan Man?

[Reagan Man]

Another libertarian gadfly whining on high. LOL

So what are you, just a Fanboy for Ronpaul, or a Paultard? My monies on the latter.

Paul is a pacifist, he opposes war, period. His 5.8% in the GOP primaries was the anti-war vote within the GOP. Paul is an isolationist. A military and political isolationist --- NOT an economic isolationist. Pay attention!

>>>>>Please tell me why you feel that it is necessary...

I explained this to to you once before. link. Bad memory. Put down the bong!

>>>>>Lincoln was a statist...

Right. Anyone who is not Ronpaul, a Paultard or a libertarian, is a statist. You moron!

Why don't you stop whining the same old worn out libertarian-anarchist BS talking points and start thinking for yourself, rabscuttle385.

[Bokababe]

"Paul is a pacifist, he opposes war, period."

What ever happened to "Blessed are the Peacemakers"? Or is that yesterday's news, too? Why does everyone -- including self-identified Christians -- assume continual war should be the norm for America?