Ron Paul needs to Wake up!--Stop Dreaming!

[Zaknafien]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ptU2GzwOMs

Nice video. Perhaps this dude can save the Republic in a long shot :idea2:

[Banquo's Ghost]

I should note that we have a sticky thread available for videos presented with little or no commentary.

Starting a new thread that includes a video link to support a news item or commentary is fine, otherwise, please add to the above sticky in future.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[Kralizec]

Sounds like a guy I'd consider voting for.

[Odin]

Some of his libertarian views are particularly appealing to me. I’m hoping he has a Perrot effect and some of them get absorbed into the 2 big parties.

[Lemur]

I rather like Ron Paul. Unfortunately, he's a committed isolationist.

[Don Corleone]

I have a problem with a man that can accept, even approve, of the murder of 3000 of his fellow citizens. Don't have much use for people of this ilk.

Regardless of whether you approve of our foreign policy, 9/11 is not justifiable. Two wrongs do not make a right.

What's more, how well would such a man protect America? Every two-bit terrorist with an axe to grind would descend on us and launch a terror campaign. His answer? Well, we deserve it. The anger will pass, after a while...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I agree with 90% of what he has to say.


His answer? Well, we deserve it. The anger will pass, after a while...

I get really tired of people accussing him of saying that. He said if we were not over there getting involved in their buissness we wouildnt be in this mess. I dont see how anyone can deny this.

I also never saw him say we deserved it. Thats whats called spin .

[TB666]

Well as a swede, I like this guy.
His ideas sounds good enough for me. And his actions are consistant with his views and that's a very good thing.
However, he won't win.
People with that kinda radical idea don't seem to stand a chance in USA.
Fear of change maybe ??

[Lemur]

I have a problem with a man that can accept, even approve, of the murder of 3000 of his fellow citizens. Don't have much use for people of this ilk.

Regardless of whether you approve of our foreign policy, 9/11 is not justifiable.
I was not aware that RP had ever said anything of the sort. Linky, please.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I was not aware that RP had ever said anything of the sort. Linky, please.

My point exactly. I thought Rudy was wrong in the way he critiized him and you all know Im a neo-con warmonger :whip:

Its rare I and the Lemur agree on such matters. Whats the world coming to?

[drone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul

In a May 15, 2007, GOP debate in South Carolina, Paul commented that America's history of interventionism in the Middle East has led to an unpopular view of the U.S. in Middle Eastern countries. Agreeing with what has previously been asserted by the 9/11 Commission Report and the Central Intelligence Agency's specialists on al Qaeda, Paul stated that the CIA removal of an elected Iranian leader (the CIA's encouragement of a military coup in 1953 against the democratically elected leader of Iran Mohammed Mosaddeq in Operation Ajax) and the bombing of Iraq in the 1990s, culminating in the ongoing Iraq war, has led to increasing anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. Then he said:

They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald] Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting.

After Paul had completed his answer, Rudy Giuliani interrupted the moderator and interjected that he thought Paul was implying that America had invited the September 11, 2001, attacks; he said:

That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11.

Paul defended his previous statement, which did not mention 9/11 specifically, but did say "they attack us" and further explained:

I believe the CIA is correct when it warns us about blowback. We overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and their taking the hostages was the reaction. This dynamic persists and we ignore it at our risk. They’re not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there.

I don't believe he said we deserved it, just that we should have expected it, after all the meddling.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Heaven forbid a man dare speak the truth. I think he was courageous for saying that. Now if people only paid attention to what he really said rather than Rudy and the press's spin on it.

Im afraid when it comes right down to it my libertarian roots are still solid :)

The man makes more sense than all the others put together. Unfortunatly no ones listening.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well as a swede, I like this guy.
His ideas sounds good enough for me. And his actions are consistant with his views and that's a very good thing.
However, he won't win.
People with that kinda radical idea don't seem to stand a chance in USA.
Fear of change maybe ??

You know he'd basically get rid of welfare (if he could), cut gov't services and the like to the marrow of the bone? I'd love it, but I thought you Swedes enjoyed the welfare state.

I agree with him on most topics - but not some of the most important topics. I'd love if he could move the national debate, but I don't want to see him as Commander in Chief.

One of the biggest problems with Libertarians is their foreign policy ideas.

Crazed Rabbit

[Don Corleone]

Heaven forbid a man dare speak the truth. I think he was courageous for saying that. Now if people only paid attention to what he really said rather than Rudy and the press's spin on it.

Im afraid when it comes right down to it my libertarian roots are still solid :)

The man makes more sense than all the others put together. Unfortunatly no ones listening.

Wow, Gawain, I'm amazed to hear this coming from you of all people. I seem to remember a debate you and I got into with a bunch of people whereby you and I argued that at the end of the day, Islamic fundamentalists, such as Al-Queda, Hizbollah, the Islamic Brotherhood etcetera were really fighting a war of conquest, and they were seeking to 1) reestablish the Caliphate and 2) fulfill the goal of the original Caliphate of one world Caliphate, with Sh'aria law universal.

I'm surprised by your dramatic shift of opinion to the idea that in fact we're responsible for their actions by having a non-isolationist foreign policy. When exactly did you have this change of heart?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

One of the biggest problems with Libertarians is their foreign policy ideas.


Yeah minding our own business is a bad idea :laugh4:

As Ive its too late now the cats out of the bag as they say. Thats our real problem How do we fix the mess weve gotten ourselves into. Ut oh Im blaming us :hide:

[Zaknafien]

Whats wrong with isolationalism? America was FOUNDED on it. Ron Paul wants to bring our troops home to protect OUR country, not meddle in the lives of people around the world. There is no excuse today for American military bases around the world, except to maintain the empire.

[Crazed Rabbit]

We are minding our business when defending ourselves, though.

I don't see isolation as good for America. Taking care which conflicts we get involved in is different, though.

CR

[Don Corleone]

Whats wrong with isolationalism? America was FOUNDED on it. Ron Paul wants to bring our troops home to protect OUR country, not meddle in the lives of people around the world. There is no excuse today for American military bases around the world, except to maintain the empire.

Yeah, cause that approach worked so well for us in 1940.

[Odin]

"American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.

The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration."

Source: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#iv

Whats wrong with this premise as a basis for foreign policy?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Wow, Gawain, I'm amazed to hear this coming from you of all people. I seem to remember a debate you and I got into with a bunch of people whereby you and I argued that at the end of the day, Islamic fundamentalists, such as Al-Queda, Hizbollah, the Islamic Brotherhood etcetera were really fighting a war of conquest, and they were seeking to 1) reestablish the Caliphate and 2) fulfill the goal of the original Caliphate of one world Caliphate, with Sh'aria law universal.

I still feel that way. All he did was show how these people came to power.


I'm surprised by your dramatic shift of opinion to the idea that in fact we're responsible for their actions by having a non-isolationist foreign policy. When exactly did you have this change of heart?

I havent shifted opinion. I said its too late now. It would be nice if we could go back in time but we cant. Look were not perfect. Ill admit weve made some pretty bad mistakes and made bigger ones trying to fix them. Such is the way of the world.


We are minding our business when defending ourselves, though.

No we are not. But who was attacking us in the 50s?


eah, cause that approach worked so well for us in 1940.

Until FDR drug us into ww2. How many years did it take him?

[Don Corleone]

Nothing, if you don't mind watching a Rwanda or a Dachau happen every 5 or 10 years.

Let's look at a few of the events of the past 50 years and how they would have played out in a Libertarian foreign policy:

-The entire Korean peninsula and Japan are territories of Communist China.
-The Serbs would have exterminated all Croatians and Muslims.
-The Cubans would be a nuclearly armed state with short and medium range missiles targeted at each of our cities (odds are good they would have used them, thus giving a libertarian the cause to respond, with whatever he had left).
-All of Latin America would be under Marxist regimes.
-The Soviet Union would be alive and well. We would be distantly behind them in the arms race.
-The entire world's oil supply would be in the hands of the afore mentioned Soviet Union. So would the European continent.

Yes, we do bad things overseas sometimes.

[Odin]

Until FDR drug us into ww2. How many years did it take him?

There once was a man named Wilson, who drug us into too WWI, place the blame at his feet. FDR might have wanted to go, but his hand was forced by mr hirihito in japan.

[Odin]

Nothing, if you don't mind watching a Rwanda or a Dachau happen every 5 or 10 years.

Clever don, but we watched them happen anyway didnt we? Certainly we didnt invade germany because of Dachau, no wait they declared on us....

[Zaknafien]

by the way, that global caliphate stuff is nonsense. bin laden himself has never espoused such an idea, and has made known his primary gripe with western policy is the meddling in the holy land. (Arabia).

[TB666]

You know he'd basically get rid of welfare (if he could), cut gov't services and the like to the marrow of the bone? I'd love it, but I thought you Swedes enjoyed the welfare state.

We do and I love the welfare state however the american culture seems to be more different hence welfare doesn't seem to work for you guys.

[Zaknafien]

Ron Paul press conference on Rudy Guiliani and foreign policy yesterday:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA

[Don Corleone]

I havent shifted opinion. I said its too late now. It would be nice if we could go back in time but we cant. Look were not perfect. Ill admit weve made some pretty bad mistakes and made bigger ones trying to fix them. Such is the way of the world?

Sorry, old friend, you cannot have it both ways. Either the US is responsible for the terrorism directed against it around the globe due to errors in its foregin policy (a claim you made above) or this terrorism is the vanguard action of a people too impotent to do anything more yet dreams of our destruction and a world with them in charge (a position I've seen you take before, and one which I continue to endorese). They're mutually exclusive, you cannot argue 'both'.



Until FDR drug us into ww2. How many years did it take him?

Do you really think we would have been able to take on Japan and Nazi Germany after they had gotten done with everyone else? Would you really have sat back and watched them take over the entire globe without raising a finger until they actually got around to us? FDR didn't drag us into WW2, we were already in it. He just got us to get our head out of our :daisy: and start fighting back, and it took us far too long at that.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

but his hand was forced by mr hirihito in japan.

You do know we goaded Japan into war dont you?



-The entire Korean peninsula and Japan are territories of Communist China.

You dont know that. Besides Korea was a UN action :laugh4:


The Serbs would have exterminated all Croatians and Muslims.

None of our business. What has this to do with our national security?


-The Cubans would be a nuclearly armed state with short and medium range missiles targeted at each of our cities (odds are good they would have used them, thus giving a libertarian the cause to respond, with whatever he had left).
Why did the Soviets send missiles to Cuba?



All of Latin America would be under Marxist regimes.

You dont know that either.


The Soviet Union would be alive and well. We would be distantly behind them in the arms race.

Same as above. Why would we be behind in the arms race?


-The entire world's oil supply would be in the hands of the afore mentioned Soviet Union. So would the European continent.


Another possiblity but not a fact.

[Odin]

You do know we goaded Japan into war dont you?



Really Gwain? So those sanctions and limited trading years after Japan became involved in China/Korea in 33 was our goading?

I'm up for a conspiracy discussion Gwain, heck we have Zak and Don involved in the thread so we have all the making of a dandy :no:

[Don Corleone]

Hey, I resemble that remark. :clown:

My conspiracy theories are just like anybody else's. The only difference is I know how laughably crazy they are.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Really Gwain? So those sanctions and limited trading years after Japan became involved in China/Korea in 33 was our goading?

What would you call it? In what way did their involvement in China threaten our national security?



I'm up for a conspiracy discussion Gwain, heck we have Zak and Don involved in the thread so we have all the making of a dandy

Conspiracy? You dont think FDR wanted us in WW2 long before we entered it?

[Odin]

What would you call it? In what way did their involvement in China threaten our national security?

It didnt threaten our national security at all, it threaten our allies national security (the empire that was great britian) Sanctions were a very libertarian response.


Conspiracy? You dont think FDR wanted us in WW2 long before we entered it?

He may have wanted us, but you proclaimed
Until FDR drug us into ww2. which suggests that the declaration of war by Japan was a result of his actions.

Maybe our take on history is different but Japan was already involved in conquest long before we sanctioned them (actually since we put limits on trade, but I'll throw sanction out there just to keep the conspiracy stuff going).

In 1931 the Mukden incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident) happened, FDR didnt begin his trade restrictions until 37 long after the evidence of the intent of conquest by the Japanese was present.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It didnt threaten our national security at all, it threaten our allies national security (the empire that was great britian) Sanctions were a very libertarian response.

Allies are not in the Libertarian lexicon :laugh4:


which suggests that the declaration of war by Japan was a result of his actions.

I dont see how you can deny it.

[Kralizec]

You do know we goaded Japan into war dont you?

I know that the economic sanctions against Japan were the prime reason for the Pearl Harbour attack. FDR was more or less a proponent for war against Japan, all so far.
Then come the conspiracy theories, that FDR deliberatel engineered the conflict or knew about the attack in advance but didn't act in order to produce a casus belli.
I don't think you really believe that sort of crap, but could you elaborate on how FDR goaded Japan into war?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I don't think you really believe that sort of crap, but could you elaborate on how FDR goaded Japan into war?

Exactly as you just stated. As to the conspiracy I find the one between hiim and Churchill to bring the US into WW1 far more believable.:inquisitive:

[doc_bean]

The topic sure has drifted and we're just on page 2...

Anyway, Ron Paul, I'd probably vote for if I could.

I wonder what his stand on big bussiness or on unions is though. Libertarianism is a nice idea, but like all idealogies it isn't very realistic to fully implement.

EDIT: I clicked on a youtube link below the video, which was about the debate. Have Americans become that forgetful ? It's actually a surprise if someone suggest that maybe the constant warmongering, switching sides, puppet governments and whatnot in the middle east over the last few devades are actually partially responsible for the hatred towards America ? Because that was a pretty standard explanation some six years ago, and it was said on both sides of the ocean.
But I guess we'e now all concluded they just hate freedom and the US is entirely blameless...
EDIT2: since when has CNN become as bad as Fox (with all the shouting going on...)
watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDnkpTkNXtM

[Gawain of Orkeny]

t's actually a surprise if someone suggest that maybe the constant warmongering, switching sides, puppet governments and whatnot in the middle east over the last few devades are actually partially responsible for the hatred towards America ? Because that was a pretty standard explanation some six years ago, and it was said on both sides of the ocean.
But I guess we'e now all concluded they just hate freedom and the US is entirely blameless...

Amazing isnt it? Again he never blamed it on us. But that we have to take some responsiblity for our actions. You all know Im an america first type of guy but history is history. Nobodies perfect.

[Zaknafien]

I'd like to point out that the 'threat' from the Soviet Union was heavily overhyped by the US Government, we all know now that it was a 'paper tiger' in reality and would have collapsed regardless.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'd like to point out that the 'threat' from the Soviet Union was heavily overhyped by the US Government, we all know now that it was a 'paper tiger' in reality and would have collapsed regardless.

Well calling them a paper tiger is going a bit far. Ill give you it was overhyped but a large part of that was they had us fooled. Just like Saddam :beam:

Now their both gone. Were still here. Its not nice to fool the USA :laugh4: It could even be dangerous to your health.

[Kralizec]

I'd like to point out that the 'threat' from the Soviet Union was heavily overhyped by the US Government, we all know now that it was a 'paper tiger' in reality and would have collapsed regardless.

And vice versa. In the USA you had industrial lobbies (firmly entangled with the defense ministry) and in the USSR you had self-serving bureaucracies both overstating the strategic threat of the other. Together they made for self-fulfilling prophecies, and the arms race was born.

I disagree about the collapse of the SU being a sure thing from the outset. Arguably after Kruschev got booted out by the party and replaced by Breznjev and a whole string of other conservative successors, economic collapse was certain - but one could only know that by knowing what we do today. Though if a Gorbachov would have taken the reins 10-15 years earlier things might have turned out a lot differently still.

[TB666]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDnkpTkNXtM
Wow, that guy in the white tie really got his head in the sand.
You can't deny that the current US foreign policy has affected how people out there think of the US.
While no nation has a spot-free history, even Sweden with our slave-trading and our force sterilization of unwanted people(of course very few countries didn't do that) but we accepted that we screwed up and changed our ways.
Maybe it's time for the guy in the white tie and other americans who think like him to do the same.