Ron Paul Thread

[bbarrick8383]

Sadly, Ron Paul is wrong on so many other issues that it’s difficult to support him, either. I have problems with his extreme laissez-faire libertarianism on such questions as assisting the poor and addictive drugs. His position seems to approach anarchism. Still, I salute his courage in standing up to the Israel Lobby and the neocons and brain-washed evangelicals who keep inciting terrorism by their ill-advised, paranoid defamation of Islam. True, there are crazy, battle-eager Muslims such as Al Qaeda, but there are too crazy Jews and Christians, also, and they all feed off one another. It’s time for America to take seriously its responsibility to vigorously employ diplomacy and stop the irresponsible ‘scare talk’. We already have missed a great opportunity to work toward reconciliation, but perhaps it is not too late.

May I ask, what your opinion is of this writing:

"If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men have the right to combine together to extend, to organize a common force to provide regularly for this defense.

Collective right, then, has its principle, it’s reason for existing, it’s lawfulness, in individual right; and the common force cannot rationally have any other end, or any other mission, than that of the isolated forces for which it is substituted. This, as the force of an individual cannot lawfully touch the person, the liberty, or the property of another individual-for the same reason, the common force cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, the liberty, or the property of individuals or of classes

For this perversion of force would be, in one case as in the other, in contradiction to our premises. For who will dare to say that force has been given to us, not to defend our rights, but to annihilate the equal rights of our brethren? And if this be not true of every individual force, acting independently, how can it be true of te collective force, which is only the organized union of isolated forces."

 

[pnewton]

lewrockwell.com/paul/paul242.html

Find something from Santorum OR Gingrich that honored our Blessed Pope John Paul the Great this way.

From the article:
Others who cheered the Pope’s opposition to abortion and euthanasia were puzzled or hostile to his opposition to war. Many of these “pro-life supporters of war” tried to avoid facing the inherent contradictions in their position by distorting the Just War doctrine, which the Pope properly interpreted as denying sanction to the Iraq war. One prominent conservative commentator even suggested that the pope was the “enemy” of the United States.

Dr. Paul seems to have the most pro-life and Catholic position of the bunch. I guess that is why some Republican hawks don’t care much for him.

 

[Roy5]

Defending ourselves against enemies that attack is one thing. However, let’s focus on Iran for a minute.

**Back in the 1950s** Britain and the US engineered the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government and installed the Shah who instituted a repressive government. Then came the Islamic Revolution, which was a tragic reaction to western action. I am out of sympathy with both the Shah and the Mullahs.

**Look at it from a Iranian perspective.** To the east US troops have occupied Afghanistan. To the west the US invaded Iraq and executed Saddam, a bad man, but not an enemy of the US really. Al Qaeda despised him as an infidel because he ran a secular state and was very tolerant when it came, say, to Christians (who since his fall have had to flee in large numbers to Syria and elsewhere). Now we have warships off the coast of Iran. What if Iran had warships off the coast of California or near New York City?

** Then consider Libya.** Ghaddafi agreed to scrap any plans to build a bomb. So, what happened to Ghaddafi? His overthrow was supported by the US.

** Besides, Iranian are aware that the US is trying to topple its regime from within**.

 **A lesson they feel they have learned is this: get the bomb and they'll leave us alone. **Otherwise, sooner or later we will be attacked. 

**Okay. Re Israel.** Israel has a storehouse of those bombs. Its quite possible that  spies for Israel in the US (Rosenbergs, remember them?) helped steal the secrets of the bombs.The Israelis refuse to admit they have the bomb and refuse to allow inspectors in. Does the US contest that? No, for decades we have given Israel billions every years (I have been there four times on pilgrimage), have provided the latest military hardware, and have backed the Israelis (by our veto) when the UN has voted by wide margins to condemn them.

** Despite the propaganda that we hear on the US media, Israel has attacked its neighbors many times**, starting in 1956 when it invaded the Sinai, while the US and France bombed Egypt. Fortunately, we had a courageous president, Eisenhower, who told those three aggressors to cool it. Meanwhile, the higher moral ground of the West was compromised while Soviet troops simultaneously moved into Hungary to quell the freedom revolution there.

**By the way, it was in 1956 that I began to investigate the Palestinian situation, only to find that, while there is blame to go around, the Palestinians have been treated like dirt. **They should have at least been compensated generously when their homes and lands were basically stolen in 1948. And, since Israel attacked in 1967 (yes, Israel attacked!) the Israelis keep gobbling up more and more Palestinian land with its illegal settlements.

By the way, read the book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. It gives an objective account of the entire history of that conflict.

** Ron Paul is wise to point out that we keep getting into wars overseas** in large part because we can’t keep our nose out of the affairs of other countries. I believe we have 1000 or so bases around the world. Imagine the expense as well as the perception of other countries. The initial problem arose when we allied ourselves with Israel and became virtually its puppet. Our politicians are frightened (except for Paul) by the Israel Lobby plus the Christian evangelicals (Protestants). A long story if I had time and space.

** The solution as far as Iran is concerned:** Iran doesn’t want to be devastated, so it knows that if it used any big bomb against Israel or the US Iran could/would be destroyed within 24 hours. Both Iran and the US need to find an accommodation while saving face. We need to negotiate. Yes, negotiate! The Iranians have a long and honorable history. They haven’t attacked anyone in hundreds of years. They are fearful because of what they’v e seen around them.

 **One other thing,** and then I must stop or may go over. I have a friend who knows Farsi. She reports that the head if Iran (I can't spell his name) did not talk about wiping Israel off the map. That was a false translation. He said that the Israeli government should fall. How many American and Israeli politicians regularly say that the Iranian government must fall?

** Gingrich, Santorum or Bachmann** - at least - would be a disaster in the White House if they act as they talk re Iran. Haven’t we had enough wars recently? Didn’t Christ call us to be peacemakers? Why do so many Christians talk like warmakers instead? Is “Love your enemy” a false teaching? Wouldn’t it be great if our beloved and mighty nation tried to put the message of Christ into practice - not naively, but carefully, cleverly, honestly?
**God bless my beloved country and all the world with peace, justice and love.**

 

[SamH]

Just curious, how do you see “peace” being pursued aggressively? How exactly does one go about doing this - past examples would be nice.

I guess that was too hard of a question.

 

[SamH]

**** Besides, Iranian are aware that the US is trying to topple its regime from within****.

If that’s the goal of the US Obama has been horrible in carrying it out.

cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-5144355-503543.html

 

[Roy5]

SamH

I do not defend Obama, as I have my own critique. Sadly most of the GOP candidates now vying for the presidential nomination are not a whit better. Why don't you run? 

However, in all fairness (and seriousness), Reagan and the two Bushs were presidents most of the time between 1980-2008 and the Mullahs stayed in power. Reagan, as I recall, was even involved in the Iran-Contra mess, which actually aided the Mullahs. And they must have liked Reagan so much that they released their US hostages the day he took office! Carter, of course, tried and failed to get them out. 

As for Obama, he did eliminate bin Laden, which Bish II failed to do.

I am a fan of the Bushes, by the way - decent people - though I strongly opposed the foolish Iraq War, an answer to bin Laden's prayer that we divert our attention away from him and Al Qaeda, our real enemy.

 

[Roy5]

** Oh, I tried to suggest a path to peace, specifically re Iran, in my 2:59 posting**. Guess that was missed. Actually, I wrote a much longer piece which ran over the limit, so I said - ‘forget it’ - and deleted it. Actually, I fear I’m wasting too much time on CAF and probably should quit. I do enjoy the tete-a-tete, however - reading and writing different viewpoints. It can become addictive, which is not good.

**God bless everybody.** And a belated Happy New Year! No hard feelings, I try to follow Jesus and love everybody, though it can be difficult. Gosh, the years race by fast.

 PS Actually, loving everybody has been so difficult that I have made exceptions for Hitler and Stalin, serial murderers, and sundry other monsters. I do admire certain heretics of various kinds, however. They make me think creatively instead of accepting what I've been told or taught. I see that as a plus.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

From the article:

Dr. Paul seems to have the most pro-life and Catholic position of the bunch. I guess that is why some Republican hawks don’t care much for him.

They must not care too much for the Pope either. Nationalism before Catholicism.

I’d rather be dishonored by my fellow countrymen, but hear the words “Well done, my good and faithful servant.” than honored and cheered by those same countrymen and hear “Go from me, I never knew you.”

 

[bbarrick8383]

youtube.com/watch?v=9B0QPcoTZg8&feature=player_embedded#!

What was interesting was Judge Napolitano pointing out the news skipping who was in second place.

 

[Chaplain777]

If you were a Muslim or Jewish Iranian citizen today, America just helped drop the value of the total amount of money in your pocket by 12 percent. On top of that, Obama just signed sanctions that may cause your cost of living to go up. On top of that, the Iranian media is going to make sure you know that the reason life just got even tougher was because of the Americans.

I don’t know about you,** but if I were Iran and I came across a nuke I would look for the the most important American target I could find and I would order the United States to lift it’s sanctions or else. **Even some Israeli officials agree that this is a normal course of action and would do the same in their shoes.

As an American citizen, if China had the economic and military power to sanction us into a behavior they demand, how would you react?

“if goods don’t cross borders, armies will,” - F. Bastiat

So, in other words you agree with me that Iran should not have a nuke?

And maybe folks would think differently, or support Ron Paul’s hands off idea had the Iranian government not vowed to remove Israel from the face of the earth. Who’s next after Israel? I agree with youe premise, but I believe we are not dealing with rational people when it comes to Iran, and a few others.

 

[bbarrick8383]

So, in other words you agree with me that Iran should not have a nuke?

No, I think we need to quit sanctioning them.

And maybe folks would think differently, or support Ron Paul’s hands off idea had the Iranian government not vowed to remove Israel from the face of the earth. Who’s next after Israel? I agree with youe premise, but I believe we are not dealing with rational people when it comes to Iran, and a few others.

Iranian government did not vow to remove Israel from the face of the earth, I’ve heard the media repeat just yesterday, it’s false.

Were not dealing with rational people in our own government, many of them are just as bloodthirsty as some in other countries are.

What are we going to do when the rest of the world get’s together and decides they don’t like the idea of us having nukes anymore?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

So, in other words you agree with me that Iran should not have a nuke?

And maybe folks would think differently, or support Ron Paul’s hands off idea had the Iranian government not vowed to remove Israel from the face of the earth. Who’s next after Israel? I agree with youe premise, but I believe we are not dealing with rational people when it comes to Iran, and a few others.

I am pretty sure that Japan didn’t want US to have a nuke back in 1944/45. I wonder what they would have done if they discovered what we were working on…

 

[ishii]

I am pretty sure that Japan didn’t want US to have a nuke back in 1944/45. I wonder what they would have done if they discovered what we were working on…

After the bombing of Hiroshima, the Japanese govt. asked the head of their atomic program (they had one) whether the bomb dropped on Hiroshima had in fact been an atomic bomb and whether they could make one in the next six months. Had Japan developed an atomic bomb before Hiroshima and Nagasaki it would have been a different ballgame - perhaps we would have settled for less than total, unconditional surrender.

As for Iran, they are one of the world’s biggest sponsors of terrorism around the world. Now, do you think they’ll be more or less emboldened to sponsor terrorism if they have a nuclear bomb? I would argue that if they are a nefarious regime without a bomb - and support terrorism around the world, they will be even more aggressive in sponsoring terrorism with a nuclear bomb. That to me is an argument for trying to keep them from getting a bomb. I have heard people say, “why can’t Iran develop the bomb - after all, the U.S. and Israel have the bomb, why can’t the Iranians?” The answer is that Iran has a history of sponsoring terrorism. That alone should counter the idea that leaving the Iranians alone to develop a nuclear bomb is the wrong position. Getting a nuclear bomb is a game changer. Do we really want to deal with a nuclear Iran?

Ishii

 

[Chaplain777]

No, I think we need to quit sanctioning them.
So then it’s ok for them to have a nuke?

Iranian government did not vow to remove Israel from the face of the earth, I’ve heard the media repeat just yesterday, it’s false.
Oh the media, then it must be true, C’mon. So Iran who is actively funding hostilities in Iraq will just chill out and not do anything untoward to Israel or the US, and won’t sell nukes to radical groups, and all we have to do is leave them alone?

Were not dealing with rational people in our own government, many of them are just as bloodthirsty as some in other countries are.
Well, I simply cannot disagree with this. But even so, nah forget it, you’re right.

What are we going to do when the rest of the world get’s together and decides they don’t like the idea of us having nukes anymore?

I give up, what?

They already hate us, they already crashed planes into buildings, they’ve already threatened South Korea and us if we didn’t pay’em off.

I am pretty sure that Japan didn’t want US to have a nuke back in 1944/45. I wonder what they would have done if they discovered what we were working on…

Don’t start none, won’t be none.

7 Dec '41 ring a bell? Were we sanctioning them? Occupying them? Bombing them? Nope! We were minding our own business…

 

[bbarrick8383]

So then it’s ok for them to have a nuke?

I’m not interested in their weapons, I’m interested in trading goods and services. If they don’t want to trade we go somewhere else with our money/needs. If they do then let’s trade, if someone comes along and tries to disrupt that trade, then we send our military in and disrupt them.

Oh the media, then it must be true, C’mon. So Iran who is actively funding hostilities in Iraq will just chill out and not do anything untoward to Israel or the US, and won’t sell nukes to radical groups, and all we have to do is leave them alone?

I don’t think you understood what I said. The media keeps repeated the falsehood that Iran leaders said they want to wipe Israel off the map. It was never said.

I give up, what?

I doubt it will ever happen, but I also hope it never happens. China is moving into a position that it could sanction us, they are modernizing their military, they are using capitalism to bank on American politician’s…ignorance for a lack of better words.

They already hate us, they already crashed planes into buildings, they’ve already threatened South Korea and us if we didn’t pay’em off.

The question I can’t seem to find a definite answer to, is why?

Woodward offered up another tidbit from the conversation with his dinner companion. The investigative reporter asked the politician, more than five years after leaving office, how much the public knows about what went on during the Clinton administration. Gore replied, “One percent.”

He then dug a little deeper, asking Gore, if the former VP were to write a memoir, how much Americans would know then. Gore retorted, “Two percent.”

I don’t blame America for 9/11, it wasn’t our fault. But if you don’t think for one second that our politicians and their interventionist policies doesn’t have something to do with what’s going on in the middle east then maybe you can share some of that trust you have so much in government, because I just don’t have it.

 

[pismopal]

SamH

I do not defend Obama, as I have my own critique. Sadly most of the GOP candidates now vying for the presidential nomination are not a whit better. Why don't you run? 

However, in all fairness (and seriousness), Reagan and the two Bushs were presidents most of the time between 1980-2008 and the Mullahs stayed in power. Reagan, as I recall, was even involved in the Iran-Contra mess, which actually aided the Mullahs. And they must have liked Reagan so much that they released their US hostages the day he took office! Carter, of course, tried and failed to get them out. 

As for Obama, he did eliminate bin Laden, which Bish II failed to do.

I am a fan of the Bushes, by the way - decent people - though I strongly opposed the foolish Iraq War, an answer to bin Laden's prayer that we divert our attention away from him and Al Qaeda, our real enemy.

Most of the Republican candidates are not a whit better…they are a world better.

Obama did not “eliminate” OBL…the United States military eliminated him and there was not a chance in hell that Obama could have refused to give a green light for that operation and have any chance whatever of being reelected. Please don’t say that no one would have known about it…pleeze:shrug:

If you strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq…you were one of the relatively few. And I disagree with your statement that Al Qaeda is our “real enemy”. Iran is and has been the A Team of terrorist activity. Al Qaeda is minor league in comparison.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Most of the Republican candidates are not a whit better…they are a world better.

Obama did not “eliminate” OBL…the United States military eliminated him and there was not a chance in hell that Obama could have refused to give a green light for that operation and have any chance whatever of being reelected. Please don’t say that no one would have known about it…pleeze:shrug:

If you strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq…you were one of the relatively few. And I disagree with your statement that Al Qaeda is our “real enemy”. Iran is and has been the A Team of terrorist activity. Al Qaeda is minor league in comparison.

Maybe so, I guess Bush had to go to Iraq first and secure that oil for our handlers the Chinese though.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I give up, what?

They already hate us, they already crashed planes into buildings, they’ve already threatened South Korea and us if we didn’t pay’em off.

Don’t start none, won’t be none.

7 Dec '41 ring a bell? Were we sanctioning them? Occupying them? Bombing them? Nope! We were minding our own business…

We were FAR from minding our own business. FDR used sanctions and political maneuvering to bait the Japanese into war with us, a war Japan knew it could never win.

 

[Ridgerunner]

We were FAR from minding our own business. FDR used sanctions and political maneuvering to bait the Japanese into war with us, a war Japan knew it could never win.

Without denying that FDR, at minimum, set the stage for war with Japan, it is excessive to say Japan knew it could never win. Certainly, some in the Japanese military thought that, or at least feared it. But plenty of them, including Hirohito himself, gave every appearance of believing it. One has to remember that Japanese imperialism in Manchuria predated things like the U.S. oil and scrap steel embargoes.

Given the weakness (and distraction) of the imperialist powers (Britain, France, Netherlands) in east Asia, the Japanese knew they could overcome them. The one and only credible threat was the U.S., and that only if the U.S. navy was sufficiently powerful. Had the Japanese believed the U.S. unbeatable, they would never have taken the Philippines or attacked Pearl Harbor. Would the U.S. have gone to war over British or French or Dutch interests in Southeast Asia alone? Very questionable.

 

[scipio337]

I’m not interested in their weapons, I’m interested in trading goods and services. If they don’t want to trade we go somewhere else with our money/needs. If they do then let’s trade, if someone comes along and tries to disrupt that trade, then we send our military in and disrupt them.

I don’t think you understood what I said. The media keeps repeated the falsehood that Iran leaders said they want to wipe Israel off the map. It was never said.

And Paul supporters obviously have repeated “he was mistranslated” enough times to believe their own lies.

Obviously, what Ahmadenijad meant by “disappear from the page of time” was that Israel would fall though grass roots political activism.

When the Iranian regime repeats “Death the the US”, and “Death to Israel”, they quite obviously mean they want the US to die peacefully, of natural causes, surrounded by family and friends.

I noticed you never responded to the links provided.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8756327&postcount=30

I’ll provide a few more. There are pictures written with a direct English transalation, (by the actual banner maker). “Israel should be wiped out of the face of the world”

jcpa.org/text/ahmadinejad2-words.pdf

See page 12 for more. “Israel must be uprooted and wiped off the pages of history” on a banner on a Shahab 3 missle. Obviously a mistranslation!

You need to be able to ignore this kind of heavy amount of cognitive dissonance to be a Paul supporter.