Replies

So the founders were wrong when they warned us to stay out of foreign entanglements? And it is incorrect to say that the we have always been that way, the traditional foreign policy position of the Republican party has not been interventionism/nation building/meddling/propping up dictators/spreading "democracy" by force. The Wilsonian/nation building model of foreign policy came from the Democrats, and it has typically been their foreign policy, not that of Republicans, until the last few presidencies.

I think many Republicans misunderstand Paul. He is not an isolationist, and he is not a pacifist. He is for the just war doctrine, which makes sense and is the most moral. Why would anyone (especially Christians) think that spreading "democracy" by force, through the barrel of a gun is right or a good thing? Why would anyone think that constantly imposing our will and trampling on the sovereignty of other nations is right? Would we like that if it was done to us? I don't think so. Whatever happened to the golden rule?

Paul DOES believe in a strong national defense, protecting ourselves, and fighting back when we are attacked. He did vote to go into Afghanistan, and he did want to go after Bin Laden and AQ. But he believes we need to go by the rule of law - the constitution, and war should be declared, legally, and it should be defined, so it doesn't turn into another never-ending quagmire, like Vietnam. And he does not believe we should go to war for the wrong reasons, or to enforce UN resolutions. Why should we go to war under the UN banner? We slammed Clinton for that, did we not? But it's ok when Bush does it?

I have a lot more to say on this, and I would like to say it, but I was told by someone that we cannot discuss the war here if we are not for it. I was told that could result in banning. So I can't say much more. But I do want to say one last thing. I really think that MANY Republicans have been snookered. By the same man who hasn't closed the borders. And the last two Bushes have conditioned Republicans to think their way, but as I said before, hyper-interventionism/nation-building/policing the world - those things never used to conservative. Many Republicans, unfortunately, have been conditioned to embrace neo-conservatism. Don't get swayed into group-think, think for yourself and don't be manipulated by fear-mongering from politicians who have other agendas. God should be our only true guide, not Dubya or any politician.

So the founders were wrong when they warned us to stay out of foreign entanglements?

You tell me. Was Thomas Jefferson wrong to take actions against the Barbary Pirates?

And it is incorrect to say that the we have always been that way, the traditional foreign policy position of the Republican party has not been interventionism/nation building/meddling/propping up dictators/spreading "democracy" by force. The Wilsonian/nation building model of foreign policy came from the Democrats, and it has typically been their foreign policy, not that of Republicans, until the last few presidencies.

Were you alive in the 1960s when our aircraft were being hijacked and taken to the Middle East? Did we ever take decisive measures against any terrorist organizations back then? Over the years we have had our embassies, ships, aircraft, baracks and allies attacked at will. We have tried to react in reasoned ways and what did that buy us? Then the attacks started on our own soil. The World Trade Center was hit twice, and the last time we came to the conclusion that avoiding hurting feelings in the region of the Middle East wasn't paying off. We took action.

Do you really think this is all about nation building? Wasn't it really about removing a man that had stated many times he would aid the terrorists any way he could to take down the United States? This is the same guy that was paying the families of suicide terrorists $25k for attacks inside Israel. He was the guy that claimed to have WMDs, and to be willing to use them. And leaders all over Europe, even the U.N. and the United States thought he had them. What were we supposed to do?

He had already used WMDs against his own people. He had already attacked three of his neighbors and had occupied one of them.

Here was a man considered conservatively to be reponsible for upwards of 1.5 million deaths. He and his sons were still butchering people right up until the time we took the actions we did.

What did Ron Paul want us to do in that environment. Were we supposed to wait for still more attacks?

If the terrorists hadn't entered Iraq to cause trouble, we would have probably been able to leave within a year or two. Did you see the latest reports to come out of Iraq? 90% of the insurgents in Iraq were foreigners. Sure we got more headache for our effort than we expected, but we also were able to kill off literally tens of thousands of people who were willing to die for Allah. These were the most radical of the bunch. Isn't that actually a good thing?

I think many Republicans misunderstand Paul. He is not an isolationist, and he is not a pacifist. He is for the just war doctrine, which makes sense and is the most moral. Why would anyone (especially Christians) think that spreading "democracy" by force, through the barrel of a gun is right or a good thing? Why would anyone think that constantly imposing our will and trampling on the sovereignty of other nations is right? Would we like that if it was done to us? I don't think so. Whatever happened to the golden rule?

This practically leaves me speachless. It is your perception that we up and decided to go over to Iraq, conquer it and subjigate it's people against their will by force. Wow. Why did the Iraqi people greet us on the streets with laughter, praise, thanks and brotherly love? Could it be that they were free from the wicked rulership of Hussein for the first time in nearly a generation, and now their future looked brighter? Do you really think the little girls that can now attend school for the first time feel like they were forced against their will to accept something? Do you really think the many businesses that have sprung up and are now providing goods to the Iraqi people, and making good profits are upset we removed Hussein?

Golden rule? If your son had been killed by Hussein so his son could sleep with your son's wife, what would you consider the golden rule to be? IMO, it would be to remove a man that would do such a thing, becuase we would want someone to do that for us under the same circumstances. Yeah, that would be the Christian thing to do. You cannot see that?

You cannot see that we put an end to Hussein's victimization of his people? You cannot see that we have freed up the Iraqi people to live out their best destiny without a ruthless dictator killing hundreds of thousands more of his people?

Paul DOES believe in a strong national defense, protecting ourselves, and fighting back when we are attacked. He did vote to go into Afghanistan, and he did want to go after Bin Laden and AQ. But he believes we need to go by the rule of law - the constitution, and war should be declared, legally, and it should be defined, so it doesn't turn into another never-ending quagmire, like Vietnam. And he does not believe we should go to war for the wrong reasons, or to enforce UN resolutions. Why should we go to war under the UN banner? We slammed Clinton for that, did we not? But it's ok when Bush does it?

We went to war in Iraq for the reasons I mentioned above. If Paul doesn't recognize those reasons to be valid, then Paul is invalid as a candidate IMO.

Why did he agree for us to go to Afghanistan? The terrorists that attacked the WTC were mostly from Saudi Arabia. It doesn't make any sense at all for him to back the play in Afghanistan but not back the play in Iraq. One was about as valid as the other. Bin Laden is most likely in Pakistan.

I have a lot more to say on this, and I would like to say it, but I was told by someone that we cannot discuss the war here if we are not for it. I was told that could result in banning. So I can't say much more. But I do want to say one last thing. I really think that MANY Republicans have been snookered. By the same man who hasn't closed the borders. And the last two Bushes have conditioned Republicans to think their way, but as I said before, hyper-interventionism/nation-building/policing the world - those things never used to conservative. Many Republicans, unfortunately, have been conditioned to embrace neo-conservatism. Don't get swayed into group-think, think for yourself and don't be manipulated by fear-mongering from politicians who have other agendas. God should be our only true guide, not Dubya or any politician.

Bud, IMO you're well intentioned, but you have to misinterpret a multitude of things to come to the conclusions you have. I am about the last guy anyone would call a supporter of Bush. I support him on the war and fault him for most everything else. As for the border, he is in violation of his oath of office and is subject to impeachment, if we had a Congress worth it's salt. We don't.

Thanks for the lecture. I think I'll skip the services next week.

Okay, since that response upset you, let's try again. And I'll stick to the arguements you're making.

So the founders were wrong when they warned us to stay out of foreign entanglements?

I don't believe they were. Is that an absolute? Of course not, and I believe you have voiced that opinion as well. And Thomas Jefferson proved it by his actions.

And it is incorrect to say that the we have always been that way, the traditional foreign policy position of the Republican party has not been interventionism/nation building/meddling/propping up dictators/spreading "democracy" by force.

Look, you folks talk about the founders and then go spinning into the stratosphere when we adress them in return. I mentioned what Thomas Jefferson did and you start waxing rhapsodic regarding traditional republican policy. Excuse me! Isn't that changing the subject? Why yes it is.

The Wilsonian/nation building model of foreign policy came from the Democrats, and it has typically been their foreign policy, not that of Republicans, until the last few presidencies.

I haven't seen one of the Paul folks come along to argue traditional republican vs democrat foreign policy. Each of you dive right in at the Founding Fathers feet and dig for all it's worth. I have shown you that is a fallacious arguement. So what do you do? You morph the arguement to one of tradional repbulican values. If our founding fathers saw the need to engage in foreign conflicts, I'm not going to start arguing with you about traditional republican values because you lost the high ground on the segment of the arguement made most often.

I think many Republicans misunderstand Paul.

I do not. It think we have him pegged for exactly what he is. He is a person who gets a fair amount of the Constitution right, but also exploits the portion he gets wrong to further his own cause. I personally object to him trying to make the case that we have no vested interest in Iraq. That is patently false. The case is made that we invaded to nation build. Good Lord, how blind can a man be? If we went there solely to nation build and there was no need for intervention, how is it that we have found tens of thousands of terrorists willing to die? And what did they wish to die for? Well it looks to me like it was the radical islamic terrorist fringe led by Osama Bin Laden. And who took down the WTC? Hmmm, the same damned people...

Did we threaten to turn Iraq into a Christian nation? Did we threaten to absorb it into our own nation, making it a state or something? Did we threaten to create a situation where only one faction of Iraqis would rule the others? We did none of this. We created a situation where a broad spectrum of Iraqis could rule as the populace saw fit, with open democratic elections.

And we did it, after eliminating tens of thousands of people who hate the United States so much, they would commit suicide rather than live in peace with people of their own religion.

And Paul doesn't think we had any interests in Iraq? If we hadn't had any opposition, that would have proved his case. The fact that we did leaves Paul's arguement in the ash bin of history.

He is not an isolationist, and he is not a pacifist.

With regard to Iraq, he most certainly is.

He is for the just war doctrine, which makes sense and is the most moral.

The United States has taken out one of the world's leading terrorist sympathizers, one that was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel $25k per, and yet Paul makes the claim that this war does not make sense and is immoral. Hussein is reponsible for attacking three of four neighboring states, the loss of at least 1.5 million lives, the use of chemical weapons on the kurds, the butchering of his own people both he and his sons, and the threat to use weapons of mass destruction on neigboring states again.

Then Paul accidently makes the case that it would be immoral to put and end to this, and actually unjust. Say what?

Why would anyone (especially Christians) think that spreading "democracy" by force, through the barrel of a gun is right or a good thing?

You'll have to pardon me, but this is precisely the line used by the 1960s and 70s peaceniks. And now Ron Paul has adopted it as his own. And you can't understand why a conservative would want to barf at the mere prospect of a Constitutionalist objecting to stopping coummunism or terrorism in it's tracks? The Soviet Union pumped millions of dollars into the Green Party in Europe during the cold war to spread this type of logic. Our own peacenks were led by the world's leading communist sympathizers. They put daisies in the national guardsmen's gun barrles after they had been called out to protect people and property from these peace loving people. (Gag)

Why would anyone think that constantly imposing our will and trampling on the sovereignty of other nations is right? Would we like that if it was done to us? I don't think so. Whatever happened to the golden rule?

It curdles my blood to listen to your arguements here. It's like reliving the 1960s and 70s all over again. I have seldom seen such convoluted logic in my life, but I will answer your questions.

Who was in fact trampling on the rights of the Iraqis? Who's rights were we trampling? What was the implementer of the Golden Rule, or did anyone implement it?

Did we trample the rights of the Iraqi girls who could not attend school? Did we trample the rights of the kurds to be free from chemical and conventional forces attacks? Did we trample the rights of women whose husbands were butchered so Husseing's boys could use them as play things, then mutilate and kill them? Did we trample the rights of four different nations in the region, that had been attacked by Hussein? Did we trample the rights of future Iraqis and other nations, who would be the victims of Hussein's depraved actions?

What the hell are you talking about? The only rights that got trampled are that of Saddam Hussein, Ooday and Qoosay. Why is Ron Paul defending him with such a penchant? Oh he can deny it all he wants, but that is precisely what it boils down to in the end. Ron Paul truely does think the United States trampled the sovereignty of another nation. Un be lieve able!

If the leadership in the United States had done the same things, it's people subject to the same abuse, nations around the world subject to the terrorism of Hussein's bossom buddies, oh you bet, I would have prayed for someone to deliver us just like the Iraqis were.

If the Golden Rule has every been extended by a nation in this history of this world, it happened in Iraq at the hands of the United States. I am saddened that you don't know this.

Paul DOES believe in a strong national defense, protecting ourselves, and fighting back when we are attacked.

No. As evidenced by his stance on Iraq, he is clueless.

He did vote to go into Afghanistan, and he did want to go after Bin Laden and AQ.

Why? Please state one reason why he supported our troops in Afghanistan and he didn't in Iraq. Laden is in Pakistan and the majority of the 09/11 attackers were Saudi Arabian citizens. Now, why would he approve of moving troops into Afghanistan? It makes no sense whatever. The very same claims regarding Iraq apply to Afghanistan.

But he believes we need to go by the rule of law - the constitution, and war should be declared, legally, and it should be defined, so it doesn't turn into another never-ending quagmire, like Vietnam.

What Congress can declare, it can rescind. Either we are going to stand up to threats around the planet or we are not. If we decide to stay out of every conflict that doesn't directly involve us, sooner or later the whole world will be governed by people who seek to destroy us. And if you think a body like Congress is going to protect us, you haven't been paying attention.

This Congress would never have declared war on Iraq, Afghanistan or anyone else. In this instance, I happen to think that is a good thing. We are not at war with the people of these nations. We are at war with factions that seek to attack and conquer other nations.

Declaring war on Iraq would have instantly made every Iraqi an enemy of the United States. What passes for logic in the mind of Ron Paul, simply doesn't in mine.

Do you honestly think a declaration of war would have made the difference in Vietnam?

My guess is that you think we should have ignored Vietnam. We should have let millions of Vietnamese be conquered, subjugated to communism and the intellectuals slaughtered without a fight.

As it was, millions did die. In the vacuum left by the U.S. in it's hasty retreat approximately three million people were butchered, thanks to a Congress that did it's damndest to pull it off again in Iraq.

Vietnam was snatched from the Jaws of victory by Lyndon Johnson, Robert MacNamera, the Communist sympathizing Congress of the United States, and millions of hippies and peacenicks that were spouting the same line as Ron Paul is today.

And he does not believe we should go to war for the wrong reasons, or to enforce UN resolutions. Why should we go to war under the UN banner? We slammed Clinton for that, did we not? But it's ok when Bush does it?

Frankly I would pull out of the United Nations in ten seconds if I were President. The sun wouldn't set on my first day until I had hand delivered a cease and desist order for the U.N. on U.S. soil. Within 90 days I would have set up the personal contacts and letters of understanding so that we could continue trade with nations as individuals. When that was completed, I would pull us out of the WTO, NAFTA and the ICC.

I would give the U.N. sixty days to leave our soil and I would never conduct business through them again. Our Department of Education directors would be called to the White House the first week of my presidency and I would explain that their services were no longer needed. I would disolve the department. Any UNESCO representatives caught on U.S. soil after ninety days would be arrested on sight. There's more... not here.

Those who did not want the U.S. to enter Iraq demanded emphatically that we should get the U.N.'s approval before doing so. I would not have done this, but if I hadn't the fact that I didn't would be one more thing placed on a list that I did not do before entering Iraq, when people eviscerated me for having done so. It would be said that I ignored the rest of the world to act unilaterally. But when we do get a green light, it suddenly becomes an issue of national sovereignty. B.S., and I think you know it.

I have a lot more to say on this, and I would like to say it, but I was told by someone that we cannot discuss the war here if we are not for it.

So anotherwords any points I make here are going to be met with, I could win you over but I can't talk. No, you couldn't win me over on this one.

I was told that could result in banning.

I wouldn't know.

So I can't say much more.

Got it.

But I do want to say one last thing.

Okay.,

I really think that MANY Republicans have been snookered.

People come to their own conclusions after weighing the issues. Have you been snookered? Sure looks like it to me. Have I been snookered? I am comfortable with you thinking I have.

By the same man who hasn't closed the borders.

I don't care if Bush has committeed an impeachable offense by his actions on the borders, which I think he has, if a nuclear weapon were dropping in on us from out of space, he would still be right to try to stop it. Guilt on one issues does not transfer guilt to another. Our war in Iraq is reasoned and I support President Bush to the fullest on our operations there. Furthermore, I salute every man and woman fighting on the ground over there, and I DO NOT EVER think of them as a conquering force, occupying Iraq and forcing their will on the common Iraqi citizen. We will leave. Iraqis will stand on their own. We will have done the right thing no matter what transpires after we leave.

Humans do good things for the right reasons. The overall historical judgement of the success or failure of those actions are not based on the outcome. They are based on the ideals that drove the campaign, the fact that the campaign was carried out in a professional and considerate manor, and that the U.S. did everything in it's power to resolve the issues for the better.

We were not wrong in Vietnam. The forces of evil were more determined than the forces of good in that one. It is too bad we could not have saved the three million, but communists sympathizers did achieve their goals and never looked back. Their peace dividend will be answered for in time I can assure you.

And the last two Bushes have conditioned Republicans to think their way, but as I said before, hyper-interventionism/nation-building/policing the world - those things never used to conservative.

If Hussein had been allowed to conquer and keep Kuwait, he would have marched on Saudi Arabia and all the kingdoms on the Arabian Penensula. He would have held about 75% of the world's oil supply in his hands at that point. I can't even begin to imagine the anger that would have been sent in either Bush's direction if they would have allowed this. To allow this would have been conservative? Good to know.

Many Republicans, unfortunately, have been conditioned to embrace neo-conservatism.

Well, at least you've been saved. I'm happy for you.

Don't get swayed into group-think, think for yourself and don't be manipulated by fear-mongering from politicians who have other agendas.

Please tell me what the agenda is for killing tens of thousands of terrorists? I will admit I'm just not able to see the down side of it.

God should be our only true guide, not Dubya or any politician.

What you are insinuating is that God would prefer us to allow Middle Eastern terrorists to be able to congregate and subjegate people with the intent to destroy the western world. Wow, do you ever have a different vision of Who God is, than I do. What you have also expressed here is the idea I would choose a man I hold in contempt most of the time, to hold up in betweenst me and God's will.

Thanks for the educational, damning to hell post. I have certainly been set straight.
BTW, I appologize for not remembering you are a female. I belive we met in West LA at PF Changs a few years back. I enjoyed meeting you and I'm sure I would again. Take care.