Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

[Big_Ro]

It also think your not really developing Dr. Paul’s position on Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. As I nunderstand it, Iran is not a signator to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact. Therefore, it is not subject to the limitations contained within. So, Iran has a right, under international law, to develop a nuclear weapon. The reasons why Iran wants a nuclear weapon are far more subtle and complex than the typical conservative/Republican position on the issue. I think this is why Dr. Paul’s policy position is facile and unsatisfying to the majority of Republican and more widely American voters. While Iran may have a legitimate right to develop a weapon, its development would present a clear and present danger to its neighbors, especially Israel since Iran has demonstrated that it posses a missle capable of reaching Israel, and would undoubtedly spark a race for the technology within the region. This conclusion is well supported by history, which your post seems to agree. I submit that Republican and more widely American voters believe in their hearts that while some foreign entanglements may be deliterious to our cause, we have a duty and mission to defend Israel and our access to oil from the region. Ron Paul will not be nominated nor elected President now or ever becasue his policy positions are repellant to most Americans.

 

[Big_Ro]

I would say that things happened a bit differently than described above - which makes it seem like the Cold War was really a Soviet response to American actions. The Cold War could be said to have started during WW2 rather than after, which you seem to imply. Also, it wasn’t quite a case of America asserting its role as a superpower and the Soviets “taking exception.” The Soviets were angling for territorial gains as early as the Yalta conference, with their demand for allied approval of their occupation of Poland, e.g., and the installation of a communist regime there - ensuring the enslavement of the Polish people for decades.

I agree with you in that containment probably helped avoid a nuclear war between the superpowers, instead resulting in smaller “hot” wars around the globe. I do think that Reagan did go beyond containment in seeking to “role back” or undermine communism around the globe. He did this by outspending the Soviets on defense, pursuing SDI, and working with the Pope and solidarity movement to undermine the communists in Poland. (interesting in that Poland seems to have been the battleground for both the beginning stages of the Cold war as well as the end of it). It could be said that Reagan sought to destablize the communist regimes in eastern Europe and some elsewhere such as in central America. I would regard the foreign policy of GWB as a departure from Reagan in that it focussed more on installing democracies in Islamic countries as opposed to destabilizing communist regimes. I would be hard-pressed to say that Reagan’s foreign policy would have resulted in him invading Iraq for example, to install a democracy. The foreign policy of GWB was not containment, but containment wasn’t isolationism. Abandoning the foreign policy of GWB isn’t necessarily a return to isolationism

Ishii

All good points and fair critique of my post.

 

[MMolloy]

It also think your not really developing Dr. Paul’s position on Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. As I nunderstand it, Iran is not a signator to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact. Therefore, it is not subject to the limitations contained within. So, Iran has a right, under international law, to develop a nuclear weapon. The reasons why Iran wants a nuclear weapon are far more subtle and complex than the typical conservative/Republican position on the issue. I think this is why Dr. Paul’s policy position is facile and unsatisfying to the majority of Republican and more widely American voters. While Iran may have a legitimate right to develop a weapon, its development would present a clear and present danger to its neighbors, especially Israel since Iran has demonstrated that it posses a missle capable of reaching Israel, and would undoubtedly spark a race for the technology within the region. This conclusion is well supported by history, which your post seems to agree. I submit that Republican and more widely American voters believe in their hearts that while some foreign entanglements may be deliterious to our cause, we have a duty and mission to defend Israel and our access to oil from the region. Ron Paul will not be nominated nor elected President now or ever becasue his policy positions are repellant to most Americans.

Since Israel has ~ 200 Nuclear warheads and has an Air Force that is rated just behind the US and Russia’s… and since Iran can’t even make it’s own gasoline, I’d say Iran is not a threat to anyone except those who listen to too much War Propaganda. We have no DUTY or MISSION to defend Israel or ANY other country on the planet! The US Government’s only Legitimate Foreign Policy is the protection of US lives and property. Assigning some nebulous inherent goodness to ANY Government is delusional as ALL Government(s) is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is FORCE! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

You analysis also forgets one other key point… the US IS BROKE.

Even Lord Keynes understood that a nation can not continue to print money out of nothing (counterfeiting) for an extended period of time to pay for it’s Imperial Designs without destroying it’s currency… which is exactly what the US is doing: “Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalistic System was to debauch the currency. . . Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million can diagnose.”

 

[jam070406]

It also think your not really developing Dr. Paul’s position on Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. As I nunderstand it, Iran is not a signator to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact. Therefore, it is not subject to the limitations contained within. So, Iran has a right, under international law, to develop a nuclear weapon. The reasons why Iran wants a nuclear weapon are far more subtle and complex than the typical conservative/Republican position on the issue. I think this is why Dr. Paul’s policy position is facile and unsatisfying to the majority of Republican and more widely American voters. While Iran may have a legitimate right to develop a weapon, its development would present a clear and present danger to its neighbors, especially Israel since Iran has demonstrated that it posses a missle capable of reaching Israel, and would undoubtedly spark a race for the technology within the region. This conclusion is well supported by history, which your post seems to agree. I submit that Republican and more widely American voters believe in their hearts that while some foreign entanglements may be deliterious to our cause, we have a duty and mission to defend Israel and our access to oil from the region. Ron Paul will not be nominated nor elected President now or ever becasue his policy positions are repellant to most Americans.

Are we to believe Iran wants to hurry up and create a nuc to launch their own suicide?
Do they love their lives less?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Since Israel has ~ 200 Nuclear warheads and has an Air Force that is rated just behind the US and Russia’s…

You jest of course, about the quality of the Israeli Air Force. Look at who it has fought in the past - not a single air force worthy of the name. Having a minor league baseball team beat a Little League team is hardly an indication of its quality.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

You jest of course, about the quality of the Israeli Air Force. Look at whom it has fought in the past - not a single air force worthy of the name. Having a minor league baseball team beat a Little League team is hardly an indication of its quality.

 

[MMolloy]

You jest of course, about the quality of the Israeli Air Force. Look at who it has fought in the past - not a single air force worthy of the name. Having a minor league baseball team beat a Little League team is hardly an indication of its quality.

No, Actually I don’t jest! And what country that you would put 3rd has fought anybody, let alone anybody tougher in the last 20 years?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

No, Actually I don’t jest! And what country that you would put 3rd has fought anybody, let alone anybody tougher in the last 20 years?

How about the Brits or even the Argentinians in the Malvinas? If you consider the Argentinians as punk, consider that the COAN sank six British ships and damaged twelve more in that war.

The Israeli AF did a nice job, however, of attacking the USS Liberty, killing 34 Americans and wounding 174. Brave lads, those Israelis, when they can attack an unarmed American ship. Most senior U.S. government officials involved with the incident, did not believe that the attack was a mistake. The attack, furthermore, remains the only maritime incident in U.S. history where American military forces were killed that was never investigated by the Congress.

So much for my opinion of the Israeli Air Force and their claim to third place.

 

[Big_Ro]

Since Israel has ~ 200 Nuclear warheads and has an Air Force that is rated just behind the US and Russia’s… and since Iran can’t even make it’s own gasoline, I’d say Iran is not a threat to anyone except those who listen to too much War Propaganda. We have no DUTY or MISSION to defend Israel or ANY other country on the planet! The US Government’s only Legitimate Foreign Policy is the protection of US lives and property. Assigning some nebulous inherent goodness to ANY Government is delusional as ALL Government(s) is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is FORCE! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

You analysis also forgets one other key point… the US IS BROKE.

Even Lord Keynes understood that a nation can not continue to print money out of nothing (counterfeiting) for an extended period of time to pay for it’s Imperial Designs without destroying it’s currency… which is exactly what the US is doing: “Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalistic System was to debauch the currency. . . Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million can diagnose.”

Again, I’m sorry of I’m offending you or in some way aggravating you. I know I can be pretty tightly wound, but I’ve learned to try and keep it out of my posts.

You state the number of warheads that Israel supposedly has in stock. Now, maybe, I’m behind the times, but I have always understood that while it’s widely believed that the USA has provided Israel with some nuclear capability, officially the USA and Israel deny any nuclear capability. As a matter of diplomacy, it has always been the policy to officially deny that Israel has nuclear weapons, because to do so would be a provocation to it’s Arab neighbors. If this policy has been dropped and there is an official declaration and indeed a count of the number of warheads Israel has in its arsenal, I would appreciate a link to the source of this information. As far as to the quality of their airforce, I believe it to be one of the most dangerous air commands in the Middle East because of the commitment of their pilots.

I’m not even sure what to say about your comments regarding the relative inherent goodness or, I suppose evil, of any particular government or of government in general. I really can’t see where you get that out of my rant, so I guess you are saying for the sake of saying it. As far as a legitimate basis for our or any countries foreign policy, your statement is a matter of opinion or better yet wishful thinking. The basis which you mention is not now nor has it ever been the basis of our country’s foreign policy. You may wish it to be so and perhaps Dr. Paul would make it his foreign policy, but since I feel all but certain that he will never be President much less the Republican nominee, I think a discussion of it is a waste of time.

Secondly, I never once said that the USA should use force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear device. This comes whole cloth from your imagination. In fact, if I agree with Rep. Paul on anything, its that we should be engaging Iran in some sort of diplomatic negotiation. Talking doesn’t cost much and may help prevent further bloodshed. Again, I think that Iran’s desire to obtain a nuclear weapon and its posturing intended to create the illusion that it is on its way to developing one is far more subtle and complex that the typical talking points utilized by the MSM and Conservative/Republican hawks. To address a different poster, no I don’t think the current regime in Tehran intends to actually use a device nor do I think it truly has the capability to develop a device any time in the next few years.

Your comment that we are broke is at once not technically accurate and based on your perception that I am advocating for a military approach to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear device. Again, you are making this out of your own imagination. It has nothing to do with my position or opinion.

Your last paragraph is just…well I don’t think I need to comment on it at all.

 

[Tigg]

Don’t forget his aversion to the Federal Reserve.

I think that comes from Article 1, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Interesting post, but I think you’re arguing with yourself. First of all, I don’t understand why you keep pushing the Bush Doctrine on me. I vehemnetly disagree with the Bush Doctrine.

It’s not a big deal, but what is the “Bush Doctrine”. Bush himself never announced such a “doctrine”, nor did anyone in his administration. To my understanding, it’s a term coined by anti-Bush people to suggest that Bush did something new in espousing a “preepmptive war”.

First of all, if that’s what people mean by it, Bush certainly wasn’t the first to do it, and he wasn’t the last. Is Obama pursuing the “Bush Doctrine” in Libya? Does he say he is? Does anyone say he is? Or is there a separate “Obama Doctrine” to the effect that we go to war just because we feel like it? I haven’t seen it announced either.

Now, if the Bush Doctrine is supposed to be a belief in preemptive war, the Iraq war doesn’t qualify because Iraq War I never ended. Iraq War II was just a continuation of Iraq War I when Saddam Hussein wouldn’t abide by the truce (and it was only a truce).

Was the continuation preemptive in any sense at all? Well, I guess you could say that in some sense inasmuch as it was believed (and perhaps rightly, though little was found) Saddam had/was developing/was working on WMD in addition to his other violations. But that was not the only part of the truce he was violating.

But for the opposition of the Arab allies in Phase I, Saddam would have been removed and the Baath removed with him at the end of Phase I, and rightly so. Phase II completed what should have been done in Phase I and what the U.S. tried to get done in Phase I. Believers in the “Bush Doctrine” as I understand it, consider them two entirely different conflicts, as if somehow the U.S. just pounced on some country that never saw it coming, and out of an expectation of hostility that wasn’t actually going on. The Libyan War probably qualifies as a “preemptive war” in that sense, but Iraq War Phase II doesn’t.

 

[kubark]

Since Israel has ~ 200 Nuclear warheads and has an Air Force that is rated just behind the US and Russia’s… and since Iran can’t even make it’s own gasoline, I’d say Iran is not a threat to anyone except those who listen to too much War Propaganda. We have no DUTY or MISSION to defend Israel or ANY other country on the planet! The US Government’s only Legitimate Foreign Policy is the protection of US lives and property. Assigning some nebulous inherent goodness to ANY Government is delusional as ALL Government(s) is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is FORCE! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

You analysis also forgets one other key point… the US IS BROKE.

Even Lord Keynes understood that a nation can not continue to print money out of nothing (counterfeiting) for an extended period of time to pay for it’s Imperial Designs without destroying it’s currency… which is exactly what the US is doing: “Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalistic System was to debauch the currency. . . Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million can diagnose.”

You speak the truth, mmolloy. Unfortunately, there is a clique of foreign policy specialists, academics, and writers who see U.S. and Israeli interests as identical. Israel relies on close to 2 billion in U.S. foreign aid every year. As Ron Paul has reminded us, foreign aid is not only immoral, since it involves the forced transfer of OUR wealth, but it is also counterproductive. Also, it is interesting that foreign governments that are actual or potential enemies of Israel, when taken together, receive much more American aid than Israel does. It seems that we are hedging our bets. We also use a hypocritical double standard in dealing with Arabs and Israelis. We embargoed and blockaded Iraq, which cost the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi children, because Sadaam defied UN resolutions. Yet we give Israel all the aid they demand to defy UN resolutions, seize Arab land, and deny Palestinians rights that Americans profess to champion. Between the unconstitutional foreign policy of Bush and Obama I am witnessing some of the greatest foreign policy blunders in our history. And it really does not matter at this point if our interventionism in the middle east is the result of ignorance of or willful disregard for the constitution and history, for the resulting damage done is the same in either case and our children are going to have to live with the results: a broken economy and more hatred and more terrorism and more war.

 

[kubark]

It’s not a big deal, but what is the “Bush Doctrine”. Bush himself never announced such a “doctrine”, nor did anyone in his administration. To my understanding, it’s a term coined by anti-Bush people to suggest that Bush did something new in espousing a “preepmptive war”.

First of all, if that’s what people mean by it, Bush certainly wasn’t the first to do it, and he wasn’t the last. Is Obama pursuing the “Bush Doctrine” in Libya? Does he say he is? Does anyone say he is? Or is there a separate “Obama Doctrine” to the effect that we go to war just because we feel like it? I haven’t seen it announced either.

Now, if the Bush Doctrine is supposed to be a belief in preemptive war, the Iraq war doesn’t qualify because Iraq War I never ended. Iraq War II was just a continuation of Iraq War I when Saddam Hussein wouldn’t abide by the truce (and it was only a truce).

Was the continuation preemptive in any sense at all? Well, I guess you could say that in some sense inasmuch as it was believed (and perhaps rightly, though little was found) Saddam had/was developing/was working on WMD in addition to his other violations. But that was not the only part of the truce he was violating.

But for the opposition of the Arab allies in Phase I, Saddam would have been removed and the Baath removed with him at the end of Phase I, and rightly so. Phase II completed what should have been done in Phase I and what the U.S. tried to get done in Phase I. Believers in the “Bush Doctrine” as I understand it, consider them two entirely different conflicts, as if somehow the U.S. just pounced on some country that never saw it coming, and out of an expectation of hostility that wasn’t actually going on. The Libyan War probably qualifies as a “preemptive war” in that sense, but Iraq War Phase II doesn’t.

What is the Bush Doctrine? Here are its basic tenets, according to presidential speeches and statements in the two years following 9/11 and the National Security Stratetgy (NSS) issued by the White House on September 21, 2002: 1. The war on terror is between “good” and “evil” and it will not end until we eradicate all terror networks of a global reach. Every nation must decide: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. 2. No rogue nation, especially “Iran, Iraq, and North Korea”, will be allowed to acquire WMDs. The U.S. claims a right to launch preemptive strikes and wage preventive wars against any rogue regime that seeks such weapons. 3. Only when the world is democratic can America be secure. We undertake this duty to mankind because we are “good” and our enemies our “evil” and we are the “single surviving model of human progress.” 4. No nation will be permitted, ever again, to rise to a position of power to where it can challenge the United States, globally or regionally. Let it be said: This is utopianism. This is democratic imperialism. This will bleed, bankrupt, and isolate this republic. This is what Ron Paul is warning us about. This is what every “mainstream” Republican candidate in 2012 needs to be asked about.

 

[estesbob]

What is the Bush Doctrine? Here are its basic tenets, according to presidential speeches and statements in the two years following 9/11 and the National Security Stratetgy (NSS) issued by the White House on September 21, 2002: 1. The war on terror is between “good” and “evil” and it will not end until we eradicate all terror networks of a global reach. Every nation must decide: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. 2. No rogue nation, especially “Iran, Iraq, and North Korea”, will be allowed to acquire WMDs. The U.S. claims a right to launch preemptive strikes and wage preventive wars against any rogue regime that seeks such weapons. 3. Only when the world is democratic can America be secure. We undertake this duty to mankind because we are “good” and our enemies our “evil” and we are the “single surviving model of human progress.” 4. No nation will be permitted, ever again, to rise to a position of power to where it can challenge the United States, globally or regionally. Let it be said: This is utopianism. This is democratic imperialism. This will bleed, bankrupt, and isolate this republic. This is what Ron Paul is warning us about. This is what every “mainstream” Republican candidate in 2012 needs to be asked about.

In other words Ridgerunner was right. The so called Bush Doctrine is based on nothing more than selective reading of his speeches seasoned with a lot of unfounded speculation and buttressed by conspiracy theories and wild eyed hyperbole

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

In other words Ridgerunner was right. The so called Bush Doctrine is based on nothing more than selective reading of his speeches seasoned with a lot of unfounded speculation and buttressed by conspiracy theories and wild eyed hyperbole

and observation of the “doctrine” in practice.

 

[kubark]

It’s not a big deal, but what is the “Bush Doctrine”. Bush himself never announced such a “doctrine”, nor did anyone in his administration. To my understanding, it’s a term coined by anti-Bush people to suggest that Bush did something new in espousing a “preepmptive war”.

First of all, if that’s what people mean by it, Bush certainly wasn’t the first to do it, and he wasn’t the last. Is Obama pursuing the “Bush Doctrine” in Libya? Does he say he is? Does anyone say he is? Or is there a separate “Obama Doctrine” to the effect that we go to war just because we feel like it? I haven’t seen it announced either.

Now, if the Bush Doctrine is supposed to be a belief in preemptive war, the Iraq war doesn’t qualify because Iraq War I never ended. Iraq War II was just a continuation of Iraq War I when Saddam Hussein wouldn’t abide by the truce (and it was only a truce).

Was the continuation preemptive in any sense at all? Well, I guess you could say that in some sense inasmuch as it was believed (and perhaps rightly, though little was found) Saddam had/was developing/was working on WMD in addition to his other violations. But that was not the only part of the truce he was violating.

But for the opposition of the Arab allies in Phase I, Saddam would have been removed and the Baath removed with him at the end of Phase I, and rightly so. Phase II completed what should have been done in Phase I and what the U.S. tried to get done in Phase I. Believers in the “Bush Doctrine” as I understand it, consider them two entirely different conflicts, as if somehow the U.S. just pounced on some country that never saw it coming, and out of an expectation of hostility that wasn’t actually going on. The Libyan War probably qualifies as a “preemptive war” in that sense, but Iraq War Phase II doesn’t.

As to your notion that Iraq II was simply a continuation of Iraq I, that is incorrect. That’s not my opinion. That’s based on the reasons given to us by the George W. Bush Administration. In 2003, the United States invaded a country that did not threaten us, did not attack us, and did not want war with us, to disarm it of weapons we have since discovered it did not have, on the false pretext that Iraq had played a role in 9/11 and was building WMDs to attack us. We are now tied down to a region, with blood and treasure, in an effort to create democracy in a region where it has never before existed. Here are some questions we need to ask with the 2012 election in mind: Did the 15 hijackers from Saudi Arabia fly into the WTC to protest the Bill of Rights or because they want us off sacred Saudi soil and out of the Middle East? Is a huge U.S. military presence in the Arab and Islamic world the way to win the war Arab and Islamic terrorists have launched against us - or is that a principal cause of the war? Is there anything over there - oil, bases, empire - worth risking an atomic bomb on U.S. soil?

 

[kubark]

In other words Ridgerunner was right. The so called Bush Doctrine is based on nothing more than selective reading of his speeches seasoned with a lot of unfounded speculation and buttressed by conspiracy theories and wild eyed hyperbole

The Bush Doctrine is based on Bush’s own words so it can hardly be “selective.” Speeches before a joint session of Congress, State of the Unions, speeches at West Point and Fort Campbell, speeches at National Endowment for Democracy and at Whitehall castle, and a National Security Strategy issued by the White House are hardly sources of “unfounded speculation.” What “conspiracy theories” and “wild eyed hyberbole” were you referencing?

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Bush Doctrine is based on Bush’s own words so it can hardly be “selective.” Speeches before a joint session of Congress, State of the Unions, speeches at West Point and Fort Campbell, speeches at National Endowment for Democracy and at Whitehall castle, and a National Security Strategy issued by the White House are hardly sources of “unfounded speculation.” What “conspiracy theories” and “wild eyed hyberbole” were you referencing?

Now, this is a revelation! Quote Bush from a reliable source wherein he enunciates the “Bush Doctrine”, containing all of the Paulist/Leftist allegations contained in your view of same. Upon doing so, I will admit there is such a thing as a “Bush Doctrine” and that it’s not just a fabrication of the far left which, for some reason, has been adopted by Libertarians.

Failing to do that, you will be admitting that it’s an opinion held by Paul partisans and the left about Bush’s motivations, to which they, and now you, give a name, and nothing more.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Estesbob:

Wouldn’t it be fun to get together a bunch of Ron Paul speeches, interviews, etc, and cut and paste them to create a “Paul Doctrine”? I guess it would have to include legalization of prostitution, which was dodged by the Paulists here, but said by Paul himself. Not sure how to work that in, exactly, between “America brought 911 on itself” and “Abolish the fed and adopt the gold standard.” But if we try earnestly, we might get it done.

Just as a partial piece, perhaps “Prostitutes deserve to be paid in gold, especially when taken across state lines for the purpose, and it’s America’s fault that they’re not.”

Add your contribution if you wish, and have the time.

 

[kubark]

Now, this is a revelation! Quote Bush from a reliable source wherein he enunciates the “Bush Doctrine”, containing all of the Paulist/Leftist allegations contained in your view of same. Upon doing so, I will admit there is such a thing as a “Bush Doctrine” and that it’s not just a fabrication of the far left which, for some reason, has been adopted by Libertarians.

Failing to do that, you will be admitting that it’s an opinion held by Paul partisans and the left about Bush’s motivations, to which they, and now you, give a name, and nothing more.

The Bush Doctrine is no more a “fabrication” than was the Truman Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine was codified in the The National Security Strategy of the United States issued by the White House in 2002 and updated in 2006. The term “Bush Doctrine” was not “fabricated” by “the far Left” which you are attempting to associate with “Paulists”. The phrase “Bush Doctrine” was actually first used by Charles Krauthammer in 2001.