Ron Paul says he's broken one-day online fundraising record

Originally posted by icybreeze
The only thing that he promotes that I don't agree with is that he wants to end the war.
now that we have them beaten down and on the run, now he wants to get out of Iraq?? i'm sorry but that is insane.

If he does win the election he will not bring the troops home. he is afterall an adult and adults know the hard questions have to be answered with hard answers. he is just trying to get the antiwar vote and you people are falling for it.

the war cannot be stopped until every last vermin is exterminated and he knows this, end of story...hey someone needs to be the adult, sorry to burst your bubble and immature anti war rantings...grow up.

Hmm, Let the iraqs handle their own country. We have been in that country going on 5 years, they have formed a government and even managed to go on vacation for a month while our troops were getting blown up by IEDs planted by saudi's. When will it end? It's already approaching a trillion dollars. If these 'vermin' are such a threat, why wont Bush defend our borders? Do me a favor, leave all the bed wetting, boogyman scare tactics for the ignorant. I'm sick of citizens and politicans curling up in the fetal position screaming WAR WAR WAR whenever some third worlder issues threats. If this is such a threat why don't we start A DRAFT and defend our borders?

Whaat the hell did Iraq have to do with 9/11 anyways? The people who attacked us, 15 of them, were saudi's.



[edit on 9-11-2007 by ape]

reply to post by ape


I agree with you that we're not doing enough to protect the border. I heard the other day that a sheriff in Texas was in a stand-down with members of the Mexican military 60 miles inside our border. Why are we not freaking out about another nation's military performing exercises and protecting drug traffickers inside our borders?

The difficulty in leaving now is that if the government collapses and creates a power vacuum, we might be in worse condition in 15 years than if we hadn't been there at all.

The debate about whether the war was "right" or not is over, the fact that we are there and the country is a mess justifies our continued presence. We broke it, we bought it. You want blowback? Leave the country as it is now.

Further, non-interventionism, in general, is impractical. Would it have been right to let Hitler continue with the Holocaust? Germany never attacked us; only Japan did. But we went after Germany anyways. There is genocide in Africa, yet we do nothing about it. But is it really so easy to say "Not my problem," and go back to our iPods? Isn't choosing to not do anything a form of international intervention, because we are making an affirmative choice that has consequences elsewhere? And won't that cause blowback as much as taking actions? Likewise, it is tempting to ask whether "non-interventionism" plays so well now because we are dealing in the Middle East who have different skin colors; the same reason why we don't go to Africa. Questions about international relations are so fraught with difficulties that we can't allow ourselves to be constrained by a blanket policy.

Just because the founders did it doesn't mean that it was the right idea. They were representing aristocratic, landed interests. They had their biases. We need to be having a fundamental debate about whether federalism is still a necessary constitutional feature and whether we should be holding so fast to "non-interventionism," an antiquated corollary of eighteenth century national sovereignty.

[edit on 11/10/2007 by Togetic]

Originally posted by Togetic

I agree with you that we're not doing enough to protect the border. I heard the other day that a sheriff in Texas was in a stand-down with members of the Mexican military 60 miles inside our border. Why are we not freaking out about another nation's military performing exercises and protecting drug traffickers inside our borders?

The DEA has reported that foreign terrorists are working with mexican cartels in order to get smuggled into the country.

The difficulty in leaving now is that if the government collapses and creates a power vacuum, we might be in worse condition in 15 years than if we hadn't been there at all.

We created this situation and being there only delays the inevitable. We pretty much gave the Shia the majority in that country, and since we've been in that country hoards of foreign fighters have flooded in from saudi arabia, egypt and a bunch of other places. The violence isn't going to end, there will be bloodshed. It doesn't matter if America is there or not, it is doing nothing but getting us & our kids more and more into debt.

The debate about whether the war was "right" or not is over, the fact that we are there and the country is a mess justifies our continued presence. We broke it, we bought it. You want blowback? Leave the country as it is now.

we're already experiencing blowback from this, we just strengthened Iran by giving the Shia Iraq. A stupid foreign policy that just puts us in a weaker position. I've given numbers here that showed Iraq had 70% unemployment during the month of July going into august. Iraqi's sitting around doing nothing and watching foriegn contractors doing work they should be doing. "We broke it" is the understatement of the century. Yeah we broke it, and the Iraqis are gonna have to fix the mess we have created, and it will probably be though bloodshed.

Further, non-interventionism, in general, is impractical. Would it have been right to let Hitler continue with the Holocaust? Germany never attacked us; only Japan did. But we went after Germany anyways. There is genocide in Africa, yet we do nothing about it. But is it really so easy to say "Not my problem," and go back to our iPods? Isn't choosing to not do anything a form of international intervention, because we are making an affirmative choice that has consequences elsewhere? And won't that cause blowback as much as taking actions? Likewise, it is tempting to ask whether "non-interventionism" plays so well now because we are dealing in the Middle East who have different skin colors; the same reason why we don't go to Africa. Questions about international relations are so fraught with difficulties that we can't allow ourselves to be constrained by a blanket policy.

You're comparing this to nazi germany? Germany was a country, a war machine that was organized and heavily armed. Germany was also sinking U.S. vessels that were suppling our allies long before they ever declared war. The world is also a messed up place, we can't fix everything. Infact we do more than most nations, our country is the most charitable out of all. We need to focus more on voluntary charity rather than U.S. tax dollar charity, we can't afford what we're doing anymore it's as simple as that. I put my country first, and we're in trouble.. Non-interventionists are not protectionists they are free traders ( real free trade ) and always advocate dialouge with other nations, even hostile ones..

They certainly don't call other nations in public the 'axis of evil', that's pathetic and childish. If we wanna harp on Iran for supplying guerilla groups with weapons then we should take a good look at ourselves first. Our foreign policy does not macth our rhetoric and standards for other nations. It's simple, talk and trade with people, don't involve yourself with the inner workings of their country, let them handled their own affairs. We have experienced plenty of blowback from meddling in the affairs of other countries and it's bankrupting us.

Just because the founders did it doesn't mean that it was the right idea. They were representing aristocratic, landed interests. They had their biases. We need to be having a fundamental debate about whether federalism is still a necessary constitutional feature and whether we should be holding so fast to "non-interventionism," an antiquated corollary of eighteenth century national sovereignty.

The founders were wise beyond their years, they had the experience of living under tyranny and know a thing or two about war and foreign policy. The fact is our current foreign policy isn't working. When you have to borrow billions from china and japan daily just to run government and war, something isn't right. A trillion dollar a year foreign policy is not sustainable, we are bankrupting the country and future generations. How can we be so irresponsible to let this happen?



[edit on 11-11-2007 by ape]

reply to post by ape


What is your fundamental approach to foreign policy? That's probably a more fruitful line of inquiry.

I think we agree more than we disagree. I am simply not prepared to undo all of our influences in other countries in favor of antiquated political assumptions that have no logical bearing to today's world. That doesn't mean that I do not have grave concerns about the state of our foreign policy.

[edit on 11/12/2007 by Togetic]

Originally posted by Togetic

I am simply not prepared to undo all of our influences in other countries in favor of antiquated political assumptions that have no logical bearing to today's world

Why not? And how am I making assumptions that have no bearing in todays world? Our current foreign policy makes no sense. Our government throws fits about Iran, and then turns around a gives a nuclear power / military dictatorship ( pakistan ) 11 billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer money. Pakistan, a country who's scientists have been caught proliferating nuke technology, and is a not apart of the non proliferation treaty.. See where I'm going with this?

What is your fundamental approach to foreign policy? That's probably a more fruitful line of inquiry.

Free trade with all nations and a VERY strong national defense. We're gonna need to maintain our nuke arsenal along with our navy/airforce and IMO these are vulnerable in the long run, especially with the way things are being ran now. Like it or not we're gonna have to change our foreign policy to a more conservative one, we can't be heavily subsidizing other nations or going on nation building campaigns anymore. We already owe about 60 trillion dollars over the next 50 years due to entitlements, as of right now each american household owes over 500k. This is unsustainable, I don't want to see our nuke arsenal and our airforce rust.

So to sum it all up, my foreign policy would be like what Ron Paul advocates. Strong economy, strong military, strong dollar, free trade and dialogue with all. That's a smart foreign policy IMO, a trillion dollar a year foreign policy is unsustainable and not very smart if you ask me.




[edit on 12-11-2007 by ape]

Originally posted by ape

So to sum it all up, my foreign policy would be

foreign/domestic *







[edit on 13-11-2007 by ape]

I think we're conflating international aid--which there may indeed be too much of right now--with noninterventionism. I would contend that noninterventionism is untenable in today's world, especially, as so many contend, when we have caused many of the problems.

Originally posted by Togetic
I think we're conflating international aid--which there may indeed be too much of right now--with noninterventionism. I would contend that noninterventionism is untenable in today's world, especially, as so many contend, when we have caused many of the problems.

So we should continue bankrupting this country by going on nation building campaigns and policing the world? It's not our job to do this.

We are in massive debt. Facts are facts, this can't continue.


[edit on 15-11-2007 by ape]