Ron Paul Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How about option D? We stop sending drones over to countries we are not (at least at present) at war with? We are getting in deeper than we realize.
We are not at war with “countries”. [Most of those “countries” are actually a collection of tribes, anyway … with some alleged boundary lines to form internationally convenient borders.]

We are at war with a supra-national (?) “informal” organization … al Qaeda … “the base” … which is the military arm of the Islamic Jihad.

They declared war on the United States.

And then they systematically began blowing up our embassies, ships, and other places where our people are.

Their tactic is asymmetric warfare.

But we can fight asymmetric warfare, too.

They use terrorist bombs.

We use drones.
 
Ron Paul continues to be the only voice of reason and wisdom in a very neo-con cross-section of Republican candidate who continue to repeat the same platform of that has been the party downfall over the past many yrs.
 
No option for the white-power group Stormfront? Here’s his photo-op with them.

(And he still hasn’t returned their donations.)
 
I’m a homeschooler but I don’t support him. I agree with some of his platform but not his foreign policy.
 
Ron Paul continues to be the only voice of reason and wisdom in a very neo-con cross-section of Republican candidate who continue to repeat the same platform of that has been the party downfall over the past many yrs.
He’s the only candidate for peace. He is the only genuine conservative (as in old-line pre-Bushy NEO-conservative), and sadly, what Republicans USED to look like.
Brave men in history usually stand alone.
 
That’s crazy isolationist talk.
You’re right.
Hey, I gotta great idea. Why not use drones in the US to take out crack houses and meth-labs? If we take out a few other houses in neighborhood…oh well. They should have chosen to live on another block.
 
You’re right.
Hey, I gotta great idea. Why not use drones in the US to take out crack houses and meth-labs? If we take out a few other houses in neighborhood…oh well. They should have chosen to live on another block.
Sounds good to me, all this money we’ve been spending on this war on drugs, yet not getting any results. Might as well turn it into a real war and start launching some missiles so we can see something actually happening.
 
Sounds good to me, all this money we’ve been spending on this war on drugs, yet not getting any results. Might as well turn it into a real war and start launching some missiles so we can see something actually happening.
In all seriousness what is scary to me is some of these drone bases are located here in the US. Manned by people who are using it like a video game and are not on the battlefield to see the damage that is done.
I makes me think of that old quote from the movie Patton:
“Wonder weapons? Thank God I don’t see the wonder in them. Killing without heroics? Nothing is glorified? Nothing is reaffirmed? No heroes? No cowards? No troops? No generals? Only those who are left alive and those who are left…dead? I’m glad I won’t live to see it.”
 
We are not at war with “countries”. [Most of those “countries” are actually a collection of tribes, anyway … with some alleged boundary lines to form internationally convenient borders.]

We are at war with a supra-national (?) “informal” organization … al Qaeda … “the base” … which is the military arm of the Islamic Jihad.

They declared war on the United States.

And then they systematically began blowing up our embassies, ships, and other places where our people are.

Their tactic is asymmetric warfare.

But we can fight asymmetric warfare, too.

They use terrorist bombs.

We use drones.
But al Qaeda is not Iraq and Afghanistan. There are completely different. Al Qaeda wasn’t even in Iraq.
 
No option for the white-power group Stormfront? Here’s his photo-op with them.

(And he still hasn’t returned their donations.)
Why should he? Are candidates supposed to send out surveys to people who give out donations to make sure that their motives are pure? Should we ask Mitt Romney to give back the money he got from Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, etc., because they will use that to hold over him and influence policy? That seems much more dangerous to me.
 
Why should he? Are candidates supposed to send out surveys to people who give out donations to make sure that their motives are pure? Should we ask Mitt Romney to give back the money he got from Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, etc., because they will use that to hold over him and influence policy? That seems much more dangerous to me.
A bank’s more dangerous than a group of people who burn crosses on peoples’ lawns and celebrate Adolf Hitler’s birthday? You’re joking, right?
 
A bank’s more dangerous than a group of people who burn crosses on peoples’ lawns and celebrate Adolf Hitler’s birthday? You’re joking, right?
Nope. Stormfront doesn’t give enough money to persuade policy. Go take a look at how much Goldman Sachs has donated to Mitt Romney and tell me he wouldn’t be influenced by them as president.

Fine I’ll tell you. Goldman Sachs has given Romney $367,200. Take a look at his other top contributors. It’s mostly banks.

opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00000286

Now look at Ron Paul’s top contributors.

opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00005906

Tell me who is more liable to be influenced by lobbyists.
 
Its one of the greatest downfalls Ive seen from the Paulbots. Short term memory loss, and no knowledge of anything prior to 1980.
Operation Ajax is a historical fact. Using ad hominems like “Paulbots” is not helping your argument. Our government’s siege on the Middle East began in 1953 with Operation Ajax, when they overthrew an elected leader and instead installed a brutal dictator. The practice of installing brutal dictators from Saddam to Mubarak, to then attacking these same countries to oust these former allies, the U.S. government’s actions have been the root cause of Arab anger against the United States. Our own CIA has warned us of the consequences (“blowback”) of our unconstitutional and immoral foreign interventionism. Again, Ron Paul seems to be the only Republican candidate that understands the history of the Middle East as well as the root causes of the the conflict in that region. And he as the courage to speak that truth to to a Republican party that is is self-denial.
 
Pat Buchanan is a selective writer…
But you didn’t refute the argument that Buchanan made based on facts that he “selected” from Hoover’s Freedom Betrayed.
 
Operation Ajax is a historical fact. Using ad hominems like “Paulbots” is not helping your argument. Our government’s siege on the Middle East began in 1953 with Operation Ajax, when they overthrew an elected leader and instead installed a brutal dictator. The practice of installing brutal dictators from Saddam to Osama to Mubarak, to then attacking these same countries to oust these former allies, the U.S. government’s actions have been the root cause of Arab anger against the United States. Our own CIA has warned us of the consequences (“blowback”) of our unconstitutional and immoral foreign interventionism. Again, Ron Paul seems to be the only Republican candidate that understands the history of the Middle East as well as the root causes of the the conflict in that region. And he as the courage to speak that truth to to a Republican party that is is self-denial.
Around here, this argument will get you labeled as an anti-American, anti-Semite, pro-terrorist crazy Paulista…I’m all out of names, but you get the point. Anyway, we gotta kill people that want to kill us, regardless of their motives. Our governments policies have always been innocent and to suggest otherwise you must be totally ignorant of history.
 
Japan did not have the resources…
I suggest you read an article published by Robert Higgs, “How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor.” He says:

In the late nineteenth century, Japan’s economy began to grow and to industrialize rapidly. Because Japan has few natural resources, many of the burgeoning industries had to rely on imported raw materials, such as coal, iron ore or steel scrap, tin, copper, bauxite, rubber, and petroleum. Without access to such imports, many of which came from the United States or from European colonies in southeast Asia, Japan’s industrial economy would have ground to a halt. By engaging in international trade, however, the Japanese had built a moderately advanced industrial economy by 1941.

At the same time, they also built a military-industrial complex to support an increasingly powerful army and navy. These armed forces allowed Japan to project its power into various places in the Pacific and east Asia, including Korea and northern China, much as the United States used its growing industrial might to equip armed forces that projected U.S. power into the Caribbean and Latin America, and even as far away as the Philippine Islands.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt became president in 1933, the U.S. government fell under the control of a man who disliked the Japanese and harbored a romantic affection for the Chinese because, some writers have speculated, Roosevelt’s ancestors had made money in the China trade.1 Roosevelt also disliked the Germans (and of course Adolf Hitler), and he tended to favor the British in his personal relations and in world affairs. He did not pay much attention to foreign policy, however, until his New Deal began to peter out in 1937. Afterward, he relied heavily on foreign policy to fulfill his political ambitions, including his desire for reelection to an unprecedented third term.

When Germany began to rearm and to seek Lebensraum aggressively in the late 1930s, the Roosevelt administration cooperated closely with the British and the French in measures to oppose German expansion. After World War II commenced in 1939, this U.S. assistance grew ever greater and included such measures as the so-called destroyer deal and the deceptively named Lend-Lease program. In anticipation of U.S. entry into the war, British and U.S. military staffs secretly formulated plans for joint operations. U.S. forces sought to create a war-justifying incident by cooperating with the British navy in attacks on German U-boats in the north Atlantic, but Hitler refused to take the bait, thus denying Roosevelt the pretext he craved for making the United States a full-fledged, declared belligerent—an end that the great majority of Americans opposed.

In June 1940, Henry L. Stimson, who had been secretary of war under Taft and secretary of state under Hoover, became secretary of war again. Stimson was a lion of the Anglophile, northeastern upper crust and no friend of the Japanese. In support of the so-called Open Door Policy for China, Stimson favored the use of economic sanctions to obstruct Japan’s advance in Asia. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau and Interior Secretary Harold Ickes vigorously endorsed this policy.

Accordingly, the Roosevelt administration, while curtly dismissing Japanese diplomatic overtures to harmonize relations, imposed a series of increasingly stringent economic sanctions on Japan. In 1939 the United States terminated the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. “On July 2, 1940, Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials.” Under this authority, “[o]n July 31, exports of aviation motor fuels and lubricants and No. 1 heavy melting iron and steel scrap were restricted.” Next, in a move aimed at Japan, Roosevelt slapped an embargo, effective October 16, “on all exports of scrap iron and steel to destinations other than Britain and the nations of the Western Hemisphere.” Finally, on July 26, 1941, Roosevelt “froze Japanese assets in the United States, thus bringing com*mercial relations between the nations to an effective end. One week later Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan.2” The British and the Dutch followed suit, embargoing exports to Japan from their colonies in southeast Asia.

Roosevelt and his subordinates knew they were putting Japan in an untenable position and that the Japanese government might well try to escape the stranglehold by going to war. Having broken the Japanese diplomatic code, the Americans knew, among many other things, what Foreign Minister Teijiro Toyoda had communicated to Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura on July 31: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”

Because American cryptographers had also broken the Japanese naval code, the leaders in Washington knew as well that Japan’s “measures” would include an attack on Pearl Harbor. Yet they withheld this critical information from the commanders in Hawaii, who might have headed off the attack or prepared themselves to defend against it. That Roosevelt and his chieftains did not ring the tocsin makes perfect sense: after all, the impending attack constituted precisely what they had been seeking for a long time. As Stimson confided to his diary after a meeting of the war cabinet on November 25, “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”5 After the attack, Stimson confessed that “my first feeling was of relief … that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.
 
This is one of the issues that Obama will not get criticized for in the general election (and he should be) if Dr. Paul isn’t the nominee. The other Republicans will let it slide because they would do the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top