Ron Paul is right !!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I support Ron Paul, but all I can say is that Bhutto's death was inevitable. I had never even heard of her until she came out of exile, and my first thought then was that she would be dead by the end of the week. With everything that has happened in Pakistan since then, her surviving for months was a miracle. It doesn't matter if the U.S. is involved or not, when you have a woman walking around in that region saying whatever the hell she wants you are basically watching a suicide in progress.
 
The terms of the Gulf war cease fire were not met, cease fire discontinued. Truth is Saddam himself propagated the belief he was continuing the WMD programs and it bit him.
Click to expand...
The US government had no cease fire agreement with Iraq.

Congressman Paul proposed a Declaration of War to provide an opportunity to pass a bill under the power granted to Congress by the Constitution. It was a "if you're insisting on doing this, here's the legal path to do it".
 
Interesting point Muskateer. Why propose a "Declaration of War" bill if the war itself was so contray to what he now states his position is on the issue?
Click to expand...

If we really had a real issue with another nation than a Declaration of War legitimizes any military action to be used. His position is that our government follow the rules that the Constitution provides. If a formal Declaration of War had been made then the action would be ligitimate. Congress can not in accordance with the Constitution just say, "Okay Mr. President, we give you authority to do what you think is best," without a war declaration. Anything short of that is wrong. Rules are rules. That's what the Constitution is... a simple, easy to understand rule book detailing how the federal government is bound to play.

Mr. Paul is not the answer to our nation's problems. The answer to just about everything at the national level can be found in the Constitution. Had our leaders in the past simply adhered to the rules then chances are we'd not be faced with all the issues we now have to deal with because of the greed of people who benefitted.

I hadn't even planned on voting this coming election as I've grown weary of the entire thing for many years. Too often I voted for the "lesser of two evils". But when I began to hear people claiming Mr. Paul was a nutcase, then I realized that that maybe he was close to stepping on someone's toes. That got my attention. I listened to his message and found it close to what I've always believed. The question then is why do people claim he is a nutcase? Is it because what he has to say is contrary to the status quo? And if so, then is the status quo the proper way things should be done? And if not, then how is it changed?

I will say that if Mr. Paul fails to get the nomination I will vote for Hillary. I think she's the spawn of the devil, but if getting her into office forces the hand of revolution, then so be it. I won't choose the lesser of two evils as that's compromise. I won't compromise anymore.
 
The US government had no cease fire agreement with Iraq.
Click to expand...
This is more evidence that connection to facts in a discussion is intolerable to many. Revisionist history, denial of facts, and chronic delusion are not the makings of a good advocate of an idea or a candidate. I don't hold it against Paul but it is becoming a 'Patism'.

AGAIN, INTELLECTUAL HONESTY has a practice of using factual information to form a conclusion NOT shaping, inventing, or denying information to hold up a pre-determined conclusion.

This VOLUMINOUS information on the terms of the Cease Fire Agreement with Iraq can be found from 141,000 perspectives here.

As an advocate for an idea or candidate it is counterproductive to present such blatantly false assertions as they tend to cause those hearing the message your advocating to feel that other aspects of your message have a great potential of being just as false. When your message has truth and substance there is no reason to attempt to prop it up with sophistry or misinformation.

And further, the information I've read about Paul makes me believe that he is far to ardent on his positions to abdicate on war as a matter of formality. He has been presented as a NO, IT'S WRONG AND I WON'T PARTICIPATE type guy on the issues he doesn't support. There is always the option of saying 'I don't know why he did that' but making up answers has the effect described above on an advocate's message.
 
Paul is an interesting figure in my view. Way back a few years ago he weighed in on illegal immigration with the standard libertarian take which is people ought to be able to cross borders at will just as employers ought to be free to employ anyone as they see fit. Problem is Paul and others were looking at a socio-political situation through theoretical libertarian glasses. Yes, in an ideal world people ought to be free to cross borders and employers ought to be free to employ anyone they please. But we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world where there exist huge incentives to drive people out of Mexico while simultaneously providing incredible rewards for entering the US illegally. No reason at all to apply a theoretical solution to a real life problem. After reality dawned on Paul he suitably modified his position to deal with the reality of the situation.

Same thing for his isolationist positions. Ideally we should not be screwing around in the affairs of other countries. A lot of what we do is at the behest of US commercial interest (if you think I accuse the US of acting like a fascist country, you read correctly) which is wrong but it exists. However there exists valid interests for which we must act or face the consequences. Reality is we are no longer isolated by two oceans. Knuckle-dragging cave dwellers in South Central Asia can kill thousands of Americans. That is our reality. As time develops many more countries will develop nuclear weapons. Reality. It would be suicide to withdraw into fortress America according to an idealistic view of a world that does not exist. It is my hope Paul will grow a sense of reality about foreign affairs as he did with illegal immigration
 
It is a huge problem that so many people inside of America are anti-American. I'm mostly thinking about the Democrats and the Mexicans.
 
Maybe it's the eggnog, but I'm agreeing with Stage2 and Bruxley for the most part. Pakistanis suspect Bhutto's main rival had her killed. That would be our man, Musharraf. That's probably true, and who knows, we may have even helped.

We need Musharraf in power because the alternatives are worse. True enough in the short term, but in the long term it's also true that these things tend to go badly for us. I'm talking about supporting an unpopular dictator in a nuclear armed Muslim country. Our support can prop him up, but it tends to actually make him less popular, which ultimately causes the whole thing to backfire.
 
For information: The cease fire from Gulf War One was between the UN and Iraq. The US government was not a party with standing in that agreement.

Ron Paul is not and never has been an isolationist. He is, as he has stated many times, a non-interventionist. That claims to the contrary are made repeatedly at this point, when much has been introduced to demonstrate differently, smacks of a smear.

Those so-called "knuckle-dragging cave dwellers" were educated in some of the finest schools available in the mid-east, Europe, and the US. bin Laden is a Civil Engineer by training and degree. Further, the successes of the the attacks of 9/11/2001 can be laid directly at the feet of the US government. No, not a conspiracy, far from it. It was plain, old US government ineptitude and hubris that were the chief enablers.
 
The answers to all questions concerning the problems in the middle east are Oil and Israel.

Why did we invade Iraq?

Why won't the Dems defund the war?

Why (your mideast question here)?

Oil and Israel
 
Are you asserting because I'm just a commoner that the simple, easy to read language of the Constitution is above me?
Click to expand...

Well, if the constitution is so simple and easy to read, why are you putting words into it that arent there?

Congressman Paul proposed a "Declaration of War" bill to the House, it was rejected. Therefore, there was no legitimate declaration of war.
Click to expand...

Please show me anywhere in the constitution where it says declaring war can only be done through legislation that is entitled "a declaration of war"

Better yet, show me anywhere in the constitution where it gives ANY guidance as to how congress is to declare war.

If something is not legitimate, it is because there is a rule, guideline, edict, law or something that one can point to that says so. Show me such a rule that supports what you are saying.

I'm curious as you are 0 for 1 in con law so far.
 
What is wrong with going to war over oil? It is a natural resource that is essential to our national interests. Without it, our country will grind to a halt.

This country has gone to war over much less.
 
What is wrong with going to war over oil? It is a natural resource that is essential to our national interests. Without it, our country will grind to a halt.
Click to expand...
America gets about 7-8% of its annual oil requirement from the entire mideast, not enough to spend one thin dime fighting about.

This country has gone to war over much less.
Click to expand...
Those days are, fortunately, being forced to end.
 
What is wrong with going to war over oil? It is a natural resource that is essential to our national interests. Without it, our country will grind to a halt.
Click to expand...


I doubt you have been to war to make that statement. Never a good reason
to go to war unless we are attacked. The idea we need to spread democracy
around the world is foolish at best. Simply we need to mind our business and
take care of America and lead by example. The cost alone of Iraq has hurt
this country and will for years to come. Should we or can we do this with
all countries, our present path will end America as we know it. Who made us
the world's police force and why should I pay for it. We are building a world
of enemies.
 
Who made us the world's police force and why should I pay for it. We are building a world of enemies.
Click to expand...
The problem with that argument is that it was made by many post WWII as well. And you are listening to too many leftist propaganda outlets if you believe the world hates us. Is Germany and Japan our enemy? Is the world safer because of our actions.

I do agree that we bear too much of the burden though. Most countries, especially europe, have very weak militaries because funding goes primarily to social causes. They can always rely on the good ole USofA to bail them out if the excrement hits the fan. There is no question in my mind that Islamic militants want nothing more than to see the US go down the socialist path. And they do have willing accomplises here, whether by ignorance or design.
 
What is wrong with going to war over oil? It is a natural resource that is essential to our national interests. Without it, our country will grind to a halt.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's referred to as fungible. Regardless of where ours actually comes from, if the middle east supply dries up, our supply will go to whoever will pay the most. Talk about making the great depression look like a walk in the park.
 
Talk about making the great depression look like a walk in the park.
Click to expand...
Ron Paul's position, quite the opposite of the above, is entirely correct.

Please read The Myth of the Oil Weapon to find out why Ron Paul is correct. The danger of a world wide oil shortage is virtually zero for the next 500 to 700 years, or longer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top