Posted on 12/19/2007 11:36:37 AM PST by SJackson
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Campaigning in New Hampshire today, Republican Ron Paul says he would lift sanctions on Iran and order the U.S. Navy to pull back from its shores.
Paul says if the U.S. relieved pressure on Iran, people would breathe a sign of relief, interest rates probably would not go up and oil prices probably would drop.
Speaking in Manchester, Paul said the Bush administration has been looking for war with Iran.
On the contrary, he wants them defeated pointedly and soundly. The terrorists are not identified by, or coterminous with, a particular country. They operate in the shadows and across all boundaries.
Your attempt at reasonable discourse and substantial argument falls a tad shy. Methinks the koolaid is in your cup, not mine.
In effect you’re saying the USA cannot thrive or survive without purchasing oil by threat of military action, so our foreign policy must be exercised accordingly. Right?
Let's see, the Muhammadens demanded an increase in the "tribute" money (which we had been paying for years) and Jefferson said no. They cut down the flag pole at the US Consulate, so Jefferson sent troops in.
In comparison, Iran seized the American Embassy in Tehran and kept Americans hostage for 444 days.
Then on September 11, 2001, Islamofascists killed 3000 Americans on American soil.
Yet, Ron Paul doesn't consider our actions against Islamofascist terrorist just.
There is nothing whatsoever conservative about caving in to a weaker enemy that has been attacking us for years with impunity other than the very weak sanctions. Rather than do something about the war Iran has been waging on us for years Ron Paul would just give in. What of value would that conserve? Please tell us.
If you are a citizen and not a sovereign, that is the case.
I am a citizen, and as such I served in Vietnam although I disagreed with the execution, and agreed with the goal and purpose. I still got to serve, on Johnson's terms.
I treasure the Constitution, and Ron Paul's right to cite it as much as I do.
However, I remain in the real world and demand that the nation survive in strength to enforce that very same Constitution.
Ron Paul will not recognize that there are malevolent entities that have, from their creation, the purpose of misdirecting America's strength to subjugate the world under their vision of a proper society.
None of these entities would honor the Constitution for others once they have gained power through the mis application of Constitutional rights.
All of these entities lie and claim that the US is at fault or the US started it, when their goal from creation was to prevent the US as a nation from defeating their planned usurpation.
I will not sit idly by while those that spew or conceal their hatred of America grow strong enough to kill my country, my Constitution and me.
No beer for you!
Ron Paul is insane
The specific Paul position that kicked off this thread was his attitude toward Iran.
For the last six years, all we've gotten from the Bush admin on Iran has been a lot of empty threats and State Dept pat-a-cake.
The effective difference between the Bush and Paul policies has been pretty minimal.
"He is smart enough to know that nations do not attack other people unless their way of life is threatened, and in this case pluralistic, representative government threatens the way of life for people who prefer to be enslaved by tyrants."
No, it puts you in the realm of kookdom. Apparently you think your way of life is not threatened by sharia law.
I disagree. I believe he would see our strength built up to resist just such forces. Again, he has voted for military force against terrorists, including places where they reside throughout the world. He would, it seems, rather act out of sense and constitutional principle than knee jerk emotion.
Do you think it wise for billions of our dollars to support Egypt and other middle eastern countries; to spread our military into hundreds of other countries for police work? I think such policies are defintiely worthy of question, to say the least.
Our policies and actions in other parts of the world do not take place without consequence any more than the policies and actions of other countries take place in our own land without consequence, Mexico being a case in point.
The problem is, since 1979 Iran has been at war with the US via every indirect, asymmetric, plausibly deniable means they could contrive short of an overt declaration of war which would require the US to do the same.
Expressed in Ron Paul’s own self-proclaimed Libertarian terminology, Iran has been the sponsor and impetus for hundreds of incidents of “initiation of force” which have cost thousands of lives.
There is absolutely nothing in the Libertarian doctrine of “non-initiation of force” which mandates that it only applies to force initiated by an overt attack from a nation-state’s armed forces and/or a formal declaration of war a la traditional Westphalian international law doctrine. Paul’s insistence on such is completely arbitrary and self-serving.
The irony is that Ron Paul is not only wrong from a geopolitical perspective, he’s even wrong as a libertarian. His refusal to acknowledge the historical record of Iran’s deadly “initiations of force” by arbitrarily circumscribing the definition and the very meaning of the words is the political equivalent of an addict’s denial of his addiction to his supposed principles.
As Thomas Sowell recently wrote, there is a real problem when we allow our principles to become fetishes.
The advice of our forefathers to refrain from meddling in other nations affairs is not absolute, as even they themselves acted abroad in the interest of our country. At the same time, our involvement in world affairs should not be stretched to the extent we weaken ourselves.
Do you march into other peoples homes and tell them how to live, since you are so good at it and know what’s best for everyone else? Why should we march into other peoples lands and tell them how to live? Screw that. We’ve got our rules regarding life and liberty right here. What sense is there in shoving it down the throats of tyrants and religious fanatics abroad, letting them choke on it, and then telling them to shut up and take it?
I guarantee you Ron Paul would never allow religious fanatics to march into our land and shove their sharia law down our throats, much as they would like to do so. But, in turn, should we deprive the same religious fanatics of the superstitions and slavery they prefer?
Keep our land strong, protect it. Remove and filter out those whose despise the liberties we enjoy. Let anyone in who understands and appreciates our laws which in turn facilitate individual freedom and accountability. That is essentially what Ron Paul is about. Not too bad.
Again, he has voted for military force against terrorists,
Stipulated.
However, "entities" includes more than terrorists. It easily includes Iraq and Iran.
Ron wants to cut off foreign aid? I'll pay for the shredder he can drop the checks into. Never said I wouldn't.
I agree Ron would continue a reasonably strong military, but he would never use them soon enough.
Our policies and actions in other parts of the world do not take place without consequence
Enough of this code speak for "It's America's fault". The "consequences" of being nice and trying to be loved are more dead Americans and more destroyed and stolen property than if we deliberately worked to be hated.
If Paul shows up at the convention toting a sack containing the heads of Chavez, Castro, and Ahmadinejad, I'll give him my vote and another list. Till then, I'll look elsewhere.
It's not a matter of being nice. It's a matter of leaving people alone when it is no business of ours to interfere in their affairs, particularly when they do not pose an imminent threat. Put the shoe on the other foot for a change, and consider how we would react should some foreign entity march into our midst with military force in an effort to supplant our way of life with one contrary to our beliefs as Americans.
It happens to be part of reality that the principles we espouse are despised by some people. No need to be nice to them with our tax dollars. No need to police them. No need to set up democracy in their land.
If you really think the 9/11 attacks were totally unprovoked you are hopelessly ignorant. If you believe it is part of a huge conspiracy among all people of Muslim faith to march into our land and set up Islam and the only allowable faith, then you underestimate our resolve to remain strong and free while overestimating the strength of the enemy.
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.