Ron Paul Continued Discussion

ron-paul.jpg I am setting up this post as a location to transfer some off topic discussion that has ensued about Ron Paul as it relates to the war question which stemmed from the abortion question.  I don’t have much to add here other than a link to the video that spawned this thread, posted by Jim here at the Helvidus, a Pachyderm site.  I am transferring the posts on my blog and cross posting a couple off topic comments at the Helvidus blog to this location to be on topic.

Post Debate Fox Interview of Ron Paul:    HERE

Advertisements

11 Responses to “Ron Paul Continued Discussion”


  1. 1 stevereenie May 28, 2007 at 12:17 pm

    Jim, (#4)

    Not to cause a polemic (seriously), but I watched the attached video. I am not so sure what the difference is between what the President wanted to do with bin Laden (i.e. invade Afghanistan because they were in defacto support of bin Laden and hence the attack on 911) and Paul’s sponsorship of the Marque & Reprisal Act of 2001. It seems that it is designed to cause the same outcome with a different approach and pretense (but both at gunpoint), and I would believe that it would generate the same animosity of the Middle Easterners as the way it has been handled otherwise.

    I don’t want to pan Mr. Paul (though there are maybe some problems with his previously expressed views on matters that he is not being fully candid about now) but when he says that our Foreign Policy over time has contributed significantly in causing these people to want to dislike us leading to bombing us (i.e. 911 and many other incidents) and then I ask “was our foreign policy so bad as that their response is reasonable or unreasonable?” You can’t be accountable for others formulating an unreasonable response to your action.

    So you are left with the proposition, was our action reasonable, legal, etc. If you break down our response in Gulf War I, we were responding to an act of aggression and sent troops to 3 countries (not including Iraq) at the request of their governments to liberate Kuwait and protect the others from further aggression. This seems like at least reasonable and even charitable act on our part to me. …….. Next Stop Lauderdale

  2. 2 stevereenie May 28, 2007 at 12:24 pm

    Sorry this is off topic, but I wanted to reply to your comments on: http://helvidiuspachyderm.wordpress.com/2007/05/27/debunking-the-pro-choice-argument-part-iv/

    Ron Paul attempts to be a strict constitutionalist and so the Marque & Reprisal Act of 2001 is an attempt at that. The idea behind Marque & Reprisal is to limit the scope of force as opposed to a blanket use of force which gives the President Carte blanche attacking power. He is a strong proponent of Congress declaring war because doing so puts constitutional limits on the Executive branch’s actions. For an end run around this limit, we do wars by “authorizing force” which is open ended.

    You’re right that we are not responsible for another’s unreasoned response. So to answer was our foreign policy so bad? To you it may not seem bad sitting over here in comfortable USA, but through the Muslims eyes it may be different. OBL pointed out that us having troops in the Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia severely angers them. Paul’s’ point is to listen to the reasons they give for why they hate us. It always comes back to us meddling into their affairs.

    Why does Iranian leadership hate us? Look at the history of BP Oil, formerly called Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Look at us sending in the CIA to overthrow their democratically elected leader to install the radical Shah. To understand this history is to understand the seeds of Iranian hatred. Now after 9/11, Tehran had 1 million in the streets having vigils for us. The population of Iran was very pro-US. I think with all our language of “axis of evil” and Persian Gulf bullying ( 2 or 3 carrier groups); we have given the population reason to believe their leaders who want to demonize the US. Quite frankly, our policy has made it an easy sell by the Iranian leaders.

    Jim

    …..transfered to this thread by stevereenie

  3. 3 stevereenie May 28, 2007 at 12:26 pm

    Jim, (off topic, no problem)

    “limit the scope of force as opposed to a blanket use of force”

    If the B-52’s can’t do it (i.e. Tora Bora) and a $25 million bounty can’t do it I suppose the limited scope (i.e. Articles of Marque) would have been a failure as well. It seems to me it is just this kind of clandestine activity that would enrage them too. Right or wrong, I feel that the Islamists are after our number whether we provoked it or not whether their response is reasonable or not. (frankly I don’t think having troops on their soil protecting them at the request of their government measures up to unreasonable activity) The option is to fight it or not. I don’t believe that leaving the ME and even withdrawing BP, Chevron, etc. (although this would cause their economies would collapse) would change their Fatwa against us or Jihad. So from my perspective it is “game on” the remaining options is who prevails. I hope we do and I think it would be just because of what I see is unreasonable response to largely reasonable activity.

    When I delve further I realize that they are in it for much more than clearing the holy land of the infidels. If they weren’t they would be the infidels. I’ve read their book.

    Now lets talk about their unreasonableness. They come here and feel they are entitled to rights that are extrapolated to mean to be left free to plan their own “terrorist” activity or they cry like a baby and use our Constitution against us, certainly not their own. They see cooperation as something that should be done ONLY under their guidelines and beliefs.

    So our current choices suck but the options don’t improve by withdrawal from engagement with them. You see, Paul is not just against the War in Iraq but our “military adventurism” in Afghanistan as well. I don’t seem to see the options that you and Paul see……..sorry. I think our differences are based on the fact that I believe we are in WWIII and you don’t. I’m fighting a real war and you and Paul are not. So be it …………….Next Stop Lauderdale

    ….transferred to this thread by stevereenie

  4. 4 Cameron Davis May 28, 2007 at 12:50 pm

    I take issue with a view things you said in your above post.

    1. You stated, “Paul is not just against the War in Iraq but our “military adventurism” in Afghanistan as well.” Ron Paul has explicitly stated repeatedly we should be serious about killing Osama Bin Laden. Wasn’t that the whole point of invading Afghanistan, or am I missing something?

    2. You claim that our enemies are going to attack us whether U.S. troops are stationed in their countries or not. What do you base your opinion on? Can you find newspaper articles circa 1748, 1848, or 1948 which mention followers of Islam bombing U.S. ports or blowing up U.S. banks? Have there been hundreds of Islamic attacks in Moscow since they withdrew from Afghanistan? Somehow I doubt it. The evidence suggests the guerilla warfare used against us is a result of our Middle Eastern meddling, i.e.: the Israeli state, installment of the Shah, the Iran/Iraq war, troops in Saudi Arabia.

  5. 5 Joel Lemieux May 28, 2007 at 3:35 pm

    “Cynicism and defeatism are NOT options to be entertained.

    We are in the eleventh hour of losing this Nation…”

    Consider the only Conservative Presidential Candidate…

    Hello and Welcome my name is: Joel Lemieux I am retired and currently live in the beautiful mountains of Western, NC… I have been an avid supporter of Dr Ron Paul… “We have to get Ron Paul elected, firstly and foremost, in the primaries”… Then on to the Presidency!!!

    http://leadership2008.bravehost.com

    Meanwhile Consider The Following:

    Our Only Choice!!! Leadership 2008

    Can Ron Paul Win? On The Issues – A Resounding YES!

    Knowing this let us then look at the most important benefit… that Ron Paul brings to the Presidency…

    “Leadership”

    Leadership is Action Through *Example Not Position…

    (It is not a position of power nor being in the right place at the right time, neither define leadership).

    It is defined by setting the example through taking action on such Leadership Traits as Truthfulness! Honesty! Fidelity!

    Ron Paul Has Acted Admirably On All These Leadership Traits:

    “Truthfulness” first and foremost… Then: Principle, Integrity, Honesty,* Fidelity (to their oaths), Honor, Virtue, Compassion, Courage, Vision, Wisdom and Faith.

    DARE TO COMPARE

    Can anyone bring forth any other candidate (GOP or DEM, etc.) that can lay claim to all of these characteristics?

    I believe we are all hard pressed to do so… “Strike That”. I “KNOW” we ARE hard pressed!

    PS: Start with flyers at the Universities put one on each and every bulletin board on campus also look for support from the student GOP… Then have them go to other campus’s… Also, don’t forget High School Seniors – by the time elections roll around they will be old enough to vote! Good Luck… And may our efforts be blessed…

    NEXT STOP LAUDERDALE NOTE: Joel, I removed some sections in this post that relate to blatant fund raising. Don’t mind the comments at all, just the use of my web site for fund raising…….sorry. stevereenie

  6. 6 stevereenie May 28, 2007 at 7:41 pm

    From: Jim

    May 28th, 2007 at 12:51 pm

    Fighting wars or creating wars? It is a natural human response to want to punch someone back who is getting in your face, calling you names. We are essentially doing this with Iran. It’s called a provocation. The Bible warns us about this in the context of raising a child. We have civil laws preventing certain actions as being provoking or justifying a response. When Iran responds, the rest of the world will see them as justified. Our credibility is losing ground rapidly around the world. We are losing our moral standing. We don’t operate in a vacuum. The perceptions of Russia, China, etc. should be taken into consideration when acting in such a grand way. If Russia and China see us provoking Iran into a war in order to control Iran’s oil, they will have a vested interest in the outcome and most likely will side with Iran. China gets most of its oil from Iran and if we enter a war with Iran, supply for China will diminish greatly causing huge spikes in price for China. China who is funding our wars by owning many t-bills may want to start to dump them as sort of a payback to the US. This way more complicated than me good, Muslim bad.

    Watch for a provocation with Iran or black op or false flag or something like that. Bush is taking steps in that direction. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html

    We certainly are in times that make me think of “wars and rumors of wars”. Very scary. I agree we are seeing the beginning of WWIII, but I think the US will be taken out of the equation eventually. We can’t afford this nation building policy. The dollar continues to slide against the Euro. Our spending is out of control and most of it military spending. We have turned into the welfare/warfare state.

    How can you say that us leaving Iran alone wouldn’t change their anti-American stance? I am not advocating the oil companies leave. That is the history you need to read about. They had a nationalist leader who was elected and he kicked BP out to keep more of the money in country. That’s when the Anglo-American alliance sent in the CIA overthrow Mohammed Mossadeq. The Shah then came back and so did BP. This is huge, but nobody knows about it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP
    They have very pro-US population. We should be playing upon that, not giving them reasons to hate us. The majority of their population is young and very western minded. At least they were just after 9/11. Probably not now.

    Jim

    transferred to this thread by stevereenie

  7. 7 stevereenie May 28, 2007 at 9:09 pm

    Cameron,

    I will yield to your point. I overstated my point when I said that Ron Paul was necessarily against our military activity in Afghanistan. I should add that I deduced this from the fact that he introduced the Articles of Marque……in 2001, which to me makes no sense unless you are offering this as a substitute to Military Action by the Government. I will concede that it is possible that he could support both positions.

    I disagree with you concerning the view that Islam would leave us alone if we weren’t so meddlesome in the Middle East. First they seem to have a low threshold for what they must consider meddlesome. You may recall that we went to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait at the request of their government to turn back the aggression in Kuwait and protect SA and Bahrain. This seems to please the government and people other than the Islamists who are the ones that are being in my opinion meddlesome in those countries. As I stated in another comment that if we take BP and the other oil companies out, then they collapse over their in ability to manage their own resources. And most important in my book is that I am not prepared, just because you oppose the state of Israel, to turn my back on them and that is a deal breaker for me. I know you didn’t exactly state it, but your complaint with their existence as a state strongly suggests it, but I don’t consider them an occupying force in the Middle East. Sheesh if you want me to point you to some literary reference, how about circa 0050 where you will encounter Israel in Bethlehem, Jericho, Jerusalem, Nazareth, etc., not only before Islam, but before the “Palestinians” (what ever that means). [Secular: Josephus, Non-Secular: Bible.] Occupiers or illegal inhabitants, I don’t think so. To suggest that it exists as a state is due to our “meddling” seems to be in denial of this point.

  8. 8 stevereenie May 28, 2007 at 9:19 pm

    Jim,

    Concerning Russia and China, I believe that their perspective relative to the US in Iran and the rest of the Middle East is based on their Triangulation of the issue. They are simply playing off our problems and complexities for their gain. For goodness sake they are not incensed about the morality or fairness of the issue. They are in it for their own gain not justice. They simply want to complicate our Superpower status. I don’t take much of what they have to say about all this too seriously.

    I should point out that I didn’t say leaving Iran alone wouldn’t change their anti-American stance. My comment was clearly relative to all the Middle Eastern countries in general and Islamists in particular. I believe for what ever reason that we are where we are today, that folding our tent in the ME wouldn’t change the Islamist goals. Iran as a country isn’t the big problem and I would leave them out of that equation in that regards, but the problem is with the Mullahs. I support what I think is happening (according to the ABC traitors) that we are working to undermine the Mullahs as opposed to bombing them. But I’ll say that in the end we can’t (at any cost) allow those suckers to get a Nuclear Bomb. (whether our problem with them is Eisenhower, Carter, Pahlavi or Bush’s fault.)

    I’ll tell you just like I told Cameron above. Even if everything you say is absolutely true, your view of the consequences is accurate and we back out as you desire in the Middle East but don’t pull our support from Israel then all that conciliation would all be in vain and I will not condone turning our back on Israel. I have said before that this is a deal breaker for me.

    I read some things from Ron Paul today and he is not all that bad and I don’t want too make so much of him, but although he seems to instinctively have some good view points, my single voter analysis is that he is still wrong about defense of the US interest in the Middle East. I think that much of that approach was prevalent in the 30’s and 40’s and led to big problems. I don’t think we can be isolationist. Further more I wish he would show more candor and release copies of his news letter from the 1990’s that reveal much about him. If he has changed since then he should say so, but the one news letter I have is incriminating on the question of racism and if that is not the case, why is he refusing to release other copies. Here is a link to a copy of his news letter from 1992 available from the Daily Kos (sorry) but this is the only availability on the internet that I could find. If he isn’t racist or anti-Semetic for that matter, I’d like to hear it from him and have him be more forthcoming on the matter.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

  9. 9 Jim May 28, 2007 at 9:51 pm

    Hi stevereenie,
    I want to comment on what you said here: “I think our differences are based on the fact that I believe we are in WWIII and you don’t. I’m fighting a real war and you and Paul are not.”
    I don’t want to enter WWIII whereas you seem almost eager to have this situation escalate. You are fighting the war? How? Have you served in the military since 9/11? I’ll bet you can’t wait for shock and awe on Iran? Just skip all the diplomacy crap, right? Maybe you aren’t that bloodthirsty, but I see that blood thirst rising with every neoconservative pundit speaking about Islamist-fascist this and that. This is frightening considering it is a dumped down American public (not necessarily you) who is consuming this stuff. Probably 80% couldn’t find Iran on a map. Yet, fear is used to drum up support. Fear and retaliation come from our basest nature that is easily manipulated. We are a consumer nation and that now includes consumption of news. We like to get news from pundits because they also do our thinking for us by giving us their opinion. Pundit consumer news reduces our ability to critically think.

    I think our fundamental differences are biblical and constitutional.
    Biblically speaking, Romans 3 tells that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and constitutionally speaking, this notion if affirmed in the separation of powers and checks and balances. In other words, the founding fathers had a core biblical understanding that people cannot be trusted and need accountability. No person was to have too much power lest they be corrupted. I think by not constitutionally declaring wars, it gives the Executive branch too much power. Congress hasn’t done their job in this area since WWII. Ron Paul is an advocate of curtailing the ever expanding powers of the Executive.

    Question for you, do you believe in such a thing as the “military-industrial complex”? The term coined by Republican war hero President Eisenhower as a warning to future generations.

  10. 10 stevereenie May 28, 2007 at 11:01 pm

    Jim,

    I am not as bloodthirsty as it might seem, but I believe that the Islamic world has been showing us (in face of our denial) that we are already in war. [I don’t think I need to repeat all the acts of terrorism on us here, there and everywhere.] Bin Laden has formally declared it. Additionally I don’t necessarily hold that the Separation of Powers in the Constitution is directly related to the founding fathers understanding of the depravity of man and a check and balance on that per se. It is a good concept but that same Constitution does not prescribe in any detail the requirements or nature for a “declaration of war.” If Congress acts and authorizes military hostilities I think that is obviously a compliance with Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution. To say otherwise is, in my opinion, splitting semnatical hairs. War has been authorized by Congresses approval (Public Law 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002) corroborated by multiple subsequent appropriations of funding. There is no formal recitation required. How does that not comply with Article 1, Sec. 8? (that should also address the separations issue.)

    To say otherwise is to also say that we can’t fight an international organization like al Qaeda since Congress didn’t and we can’t pass a resolution that says “we hereby declare war on ………?” (since al Qaeda isn’t a country)

    You ask “do you believe in such a thing as the “military-industrial complex”? Believe in it as what? That it exists? Yes. But so what, I don’t see the connection here. If one thing is clear to me here it isn’t that this “war” is being driven by the “war mongering military.” If anything, I think they have contributed a tempering viewpoint on this.

    Next Question: Have you served in the military since 9/11? No, I am fighting it as a mater of my personal perspective, not my actual participation, just like you are not fighting a war as a matter of your personal perspective. In other words we vary, apparently, as to whether we are in (support of) the war on terrorism. …. and I suppose it is fashionable to take exception to my usage of the phrase “war on terrorism.”

  11. 11 Jim May 30, 2007 at 9:15 pm

    I am glad to hear your views. It challenges me. You seem very knowledgeable about the Constitution and I don’t want to get into a semantics argument about it. Plenty of people more intelligent than myself argue over intent beginning with the federalists and anti-federalists up through today. I come from a view point of being more and more leery of government. My views have drifted to become more of an anti-federalist. Diffusion of power and accountability go hand in hand and something I am learning to value more. Speaking of, I was listening Michael Savage (not someone I normally listen to) interview Jerome Corsi today. Evidently Bush has given himself dictatorial powers in the event of an emergency or disaster. Now there are plenty of provisions already in place for continuity of government, but this supersedes all the others. Conservatives should be scared of this because Hillary is waiting in the wings and Libs should be scared of another King George. The interview also highlighted a contract Bush gave to KBR to build internment camps. This too is also scary for a whole bunch of reasons. I know Malkin has made a case for them in a book of hers, but I have no interest in reading it. I’d sooner read a book about getting chipped.

    From this link are two articles by Jerome Corsi.
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55932

    What are your thoughts on such things? How constitutional is it for a President to give himself that much power without any Congressional debate or press release? I have to say I am not shocked the major media hasn’t picked up on this story or more likely chose to ignore it, but with Savage talking on air about it, it may get some legs soon.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




May 2007
M T W T F S S
« Apr   Jun »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Blog Stats

  • 7,379 hits

%d bloggers like this: