America Has Two Choices – Ron Paul or War

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by kro32
So if Ron Paul stops these wars as he says he will it begs the question of what he considers reason enough to send troops to a foreign land.

Has anyone ever heard him mention what he would consider acceptable?

There are no reasons unless it is to stop aggressive behavior against US citizens.

Basically he wouldn't commit America to a foreign war unless America was being actively attacked by a foreign nation.

Maybe that was true a hundred and fifty years, but it is not true now.

The world is far more sophisticated and complex in its aggression than that. The Soviet Union fell attempting to maintain military viability against the economic ability of the US to do the same. So without direct conflict, between the two (but proving the point in indirect conflict, e.g., he first first Libyan conflict, and the first Iraq war) the USSR realized they could not spend the money to match the US military technology).

So enemies and passively antagonistic allies of the US will seek to undermine the US economy for their strategic gain. We know that. They know we know that. And the chess game begins. We are better at the game than most of our own people suspect. Apparently Ron Paul does not suspect the game is being played.

Originally posted by kro32
He flip-flopped on don't ask don't tell. He used to support it than he voted to repeal it.

Kinda playing both sides there depending on the political wind.

voices.washingtonpost.com...

So why did Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), after supporting "don't ask, don't tell" since its introduction in 1993, vote to begin the process to repeal it?

"I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," Paul said Friday. "To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense."

I suppose you got me on that one, but if you understand why he changed his opinion, you'll see he changed it because he came to recognize that his previous views were not in support of more liberty.

I'll wager you can't find another such instance.

Originally posted by kro32
He flip-flopped on don't ask don't tell. He used to support it than he voted to repeal it. Kinda playing both sides there depending on the political wind.

I suppose we will hear a lot of that type of commentary. He "said he was against it but he voted for it" and vice versa because so many omni-bus type bills combine one good thing with one worse thing and Ron Paul has to do what is principled over what is politically expedient. This is why we have so many horrible laws and spending because idiot politicians voted for the "Feed the Children" named bills that actually did the opposite.

Originally posted by Frira
Apparently Ron Paul does not suspect the game is being played.

The only person being played here is you, by McDonald Douglas, Raytheon, Boeing, GE, Lockheed, etc.. etc.. etc..

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Frira
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

So, If Ron Paul gets elected, expect to see him flip-flop on his campaign rhetoric-- they all do.

Ron Paul has never flip-flopped on an issue during his entire 18 terms in congress.

Ever.

Not once.

On that point, you are most certainly wrong.

Ron Paul is an ideological purist motivated by Austrian economics and the non-aggression principle. He is literally incorruptible.

edit on 16-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

I do not think I am wrong. I am not referring to his character, I am referring to the expectation that if elected, he is going to learn a lot of secrets that will negate his presumptions which he is free to make now.

All candidates presume. All new Presidents have presumption taken away from them by briefings of intelligence and strategic options available.

The strategies and the reasons for them do not allow isolationism. The time for isolation is long gone-- it is a different and more complex world now. Isolation is a moral choice-- one which the US is rightly criticized for taking in its delay in responding to WWII.

No one is "pure" in war, but if we only act when our purity can be assured, we will not act at all; and we will be overrun by those for whom "purity" means nothing. Any history book should suffice as proof of concept.

Originally posted by Frira
I do not think I am wrong. I am not referring to his character, I am referring to the expectation that if elected, he is going to learn a lot of secrets that will negate his presumptions which he is free to make now.

All candidates presume. All new Presidents have presumption taken away from them by briefings of intelligence and strategic options available.

The strategies and the reasons for them do not allow isolationism. The time for isolation is long gone-- it is a different and more complex world now. Isolation is a moral choice-- one which the US is rightly criticized for taking in its delay in responding to WWII.

No one is "pure" in war, but if we only act when our purity can be assured, we will not act at all; and we will be overrun by those for whom "purity" means nothing. Any history book should suffice as proof of concept.

Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate that holds up CIA intelligence briefs as the basis for his claims that Iran is not a threat.

For some reason I doubt he is going to learn something about Iran that changes his opinion on the subject.

Iran would have to physically attack us before Ron would do something, and as he has pointed out, they have no air force or navy that is capable of invading us.

reply to post by Frira


It is a strong argument you present.

Why candidates pretend not to suspect that we are at war for good reason scares me.

What scares me it that we cannot be straight up with the reason for killing, injuring and displacing millions of people. I have tried to think about the possible positive reasons, alien technology, time travel, population control, cultural harmony, jobs. But all these can be resolved in other ways and it comes down to oil, drugs and money as the motivating force that is pushing the decision for war.

Just looking at what really happened with 9/11 and you try and sit here and say this was a valid move with benefits is a problem... It is a destruction of a nation from the inside out and is trying to take down the rest of the world with it. So lets look at where this benefit is going - an extinction level event. If this is what you really want then please start with yourself and let those who want to live get on with it.

As for Ron Paul, it ain't going to be easy. Obama has tried to instate some corporate responsibility but is getting shut down all over the place by the oligarchs. Ron Paul is going to be an important front though with such a clear mandate and experience in the system, but will need some help on the wings.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Frira
Apparently Ron Paul does not suspect the game is being played.

The only person being played here is you, by McDonald Douglas, Raytheon, Boeing, GE, Lockheed, etc.. etc.. etc..

edit on 16-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Don't be silly. My eyes are wide open. You are correct that there are profit forces at work-- but so are there legitimate strategic necessities.

I see both, and you only see one? If that is your claim, then which one of us is being played?

Originally posted by Frira
Don't be silly. My eyes are wide open. You are correct that there are profit forces at work-- but so are there legitimate strategic necessities.

I see both, and you only see one? If that is your claim, then which one of us is being played?

Strategic necessities?

Like protecting us from Iran's non-existent air force and navy?

Like protecting us from Libya's vast invasion fleet?

Like protecting us from Afghani goat herders?

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Frira
I do not think I am wrong. I am not referring to his character, I am referring to the expectation that if elected, he is going to learn a lot of secrets that will negate his presumptions which he is free to make now.

All candidates presume. All new Presidents have presumption taken away from them by briefings of intelligence and strategic options available.

The strategies and the reasons for them do not allow isolationism. The time for isolation is long gone-- it is a different and more complex world now. Isolation is a moral choice-- one which the US is rightly criticized for taking in its delay in responding to WWII.

No one is "pure" in war, but if we only act when our purity can be assured, we will not act at all; and we will be overrun by those for whom "purity" means nothing. Any history book should suffice as proof of concept.

Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate that holds up CIA intelligence briefs as the basis for his claims that Iran is not a threat.

For some reason I doubt he is going to learn something about Iran that changes his opinion on the subject.

Iran would have to physically attack us before Ron would do something, and as he has pointed out, they have no air force or navy that is capable of invading us.

edit on 16-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Good points, but his defending a pacifist ideology which potentially (even probably) generates a greater threat to the safety of the American people is a reasonable concern I (and many others) hold. Ron Paul seeks to hold the title of Commander in Chief-- I need to know that my children are more important to him than his ideology-- because he asks for my vote which can grant him his request for responsibility for their safety.

If his ideology requires him to dismiss his desired responsibility, then I want him as a moral voice and not as Commander in Chief.

Frankly, I think that is exactly what he truly intends-- to be a moral voice for the people, but not realistically campaigning for the Presidency.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Frira
Don't be silly. My eyes are wide open. You are correct that there are profit forces at work-- but so are there legitimate strategic necessities.

I see both, and you only see one? If that is your claim, then which one of us is being played?

Strategic necessities?

Like protecting us from Iran's non-existent air force and navy?

Like protecting us from Libya's vast invasion fleet?

Like protecting us from Afghani goat herders?

edit on 16-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Like preventing a Chinese invasion of the Middle East?

Like preventing a forced enforcement of an existing treaty when we can prevent a fuller and more damaging escalation?

Like preventing a nuclear exchange between two other nations?

Like promoting a threat of Chinese invasion of North Korea to keep peace without our direct involvement?

Like preemptive troop movements to signal to another nation that we have correctly identified their own strategic intent by their strategic actions?

As I said in my first post-- it is fair to speculate that there are benevolent reasons, just as it is fair to speculate that there are malevolent ones. Wisdom speculates on both.

reply to post by Frira


The US can not prevent a nuclear exchange between other nations, and China doesn't have the naval capacity to invade anything except the smallest of nations successfully.

We have lived with a nuclear armed China, Russia, Pakistan, and a host of other nations successfully for the past several decades. There is no reason to think they are suddenly going to start nuking each other.

The US is not the world's police force. The US should not involve itself in foreign affairs if US sovereignty is not at stake.

I am faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more afraid of the dollar being destroyed by our own criminal government than a Chinese invasion fleet landing off our shores.

The US government poses the largest threat to American citizens. It is far more dangerous to American prosperity than any threat posed by any other foreign nation.

In order to wage a war, the US government must first wage war against private industry here at home.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The US government poses the largest threat to American citizens. It is far more dangerous to American prosperity than any threat posed by any other foreign nation.

If rp becomes the president, he'll be the government. He'll be the greatest threat to american citizens.

Originally posted by Jazzyguy

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The US government poses the largest threat to American citizens. It is far more dangerous to American prosperity than any threat posed by any other foreign nation.

If rp becomes the president, he'll be the government. He'll be the greatest threat to american citizens.

Indeed.

We should be very afraid of presidential power.

American presidents are far too powerful and should be eliminated. Along with the federal and state congresses that grant legitimacy to mass theft.

Peter Schiff responds to Krugman's warmongering and space aliens.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by Frira

 

It is a strong argument you present.

Why candidates pretend not to suspect that we are at war for good reason scares me.

What scares me it that we cannot be straight up with the reason for killing, injuring and displacing millions of people. I have tried to think about the possible positive reasons, alien technology, time travel, population control, cultural harmony, jobs. But all these can be resolved in other ways and it comes down to oil, drugs and money as the motivating force that is pushing the decision for war.

Yes, but those reasons you have stated all have a common theme. Alternatives that take into account one or more enemies with strategic objectives has not been considered-- but should it not be? Does not history teach us?

Somalia is of ZERO strategic interest to the US. We went anyway-- morally bound. And the American public screamed in outrage-- not our politicians, but our media and public. The politicians threw up their hands, unwilling to escalate against public opinion.

From watching how that played out, I see the status quo of the P-T-B having priorities ranked in this way:
1st - Stay in office (personal goals; and when lacking popular views, enabled by party support)
2nd - Strategic necessities (constitutionally required-- the actual job to which they are elected)
3rd - Moral imperatives (entertained only if not in conflict with the above two)

We are responsible for the suffering we allow and which we have the ability to stop. Or... Are we ignoring the lesson from WWII again? Mind you, the general population did not view WWII as a strategic necessity-- much of our general population cannot determine ANYTHING as a strategic necessity-- short of fighting the enemy at our doors. Fighting the enemy at our doors (or on our shores) is not strategy-- it is a low tactic with little chance of success because it exists without an objective and cedes control to any who wish to take it. And others do wish to take control.

Just looking at what really happened with 9/11 and you try and sit here and say this was a valid move with benefits is a problem... It is a destruction of a nation from the inside out and is trying to take down the rest of the world with it. So lets look at where this benefit is going - an extinction level event. If this is what you really want then please start with yourself and let those who want to live get on with it.

I do not subscribe to the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories-- so we ought to save that for another thread.

As for Ron Paul, it ain't going to be easy. Obama has tried to instate some corporate responsibility but is getting shut down all over the place by the oligarchs. Ron Paul is going to be an important front though with such a clear mandate and experience in the system, but will need some help on the wings.

I hope you are right-- and I hope he has success. Ron Paul strikes me as a politician who was appalled by what he found in Washington. Good. He strikes me as a man unwilling to play by their rules. Even better. He and Herman Cain are alone in that, I think, among the Republicans. Two good mavericks who will never get to the oval office-- because they would find their campaign funds drying up if either became the favorite. That is MY conspiracy theory-- that we do not get the chance to vote for free-thinkers.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Frira

 

The US can not prevent a nuclear exchange between other nations, and China doesn't have the naval capacity to invade anything except the smallest of nations successfully.

We have lived with a nuclear armed China, Russia, Pakistan, and a host of other nations successfully for the past several decades. There is no reason to think they are suddenly going to start nuking each other.

The US is not the world's police force. The US should not involve itself in foreign affairs if US sovereignty is not at stake.

I am faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more afraid of the dollar being destroyed by our own criminal government than a Chinese invasion fleet landing off our shores.

The US government poses the largest threat to American citizens. It is far more dangerous to American prosperity than any threat posed by any other foreign nation.

In order to wage a war, the US government must first wage war against private industry here at home.

edit on 16-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

According to the Truman Doctrine we are and I have yet to hear a President say that they are not following that.

That was a turning point in America's foreign policy.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Frira

 

The US can not prevent a nuclear exchange between other nations, and China doesn't have the naval capacity to invade anything except the smallest of nations successfully.

We have lived with a nuclear armed China, Russia, Pakistan, and a host of other nations successfully for the past several decades. There is no reason to think they are suddenly going to start nuking each other.

I caution that perhaps it is not safe to assume that the US has not been a key to that success. The state of things change if we head into isolationism. Politics, like the economy, is global.

The US is not the world's police force. The US should not involve itself in foreign affairs if US sovereignty is not at stake.

And how would the average American Joe know if our strategic interests were at stake or not?

We, all of us, know the mind of the Chinese? We know that the Iranian leadership doesn't really mean what they say? I am not privy to that intelligence, so please, share your reasons for certainty, because unless you can, you risk too much.

I have hundreds of politicians to observe and Ron Paul is but one of them. Perhaps he is right and the others wrong. In my circles, the day of the second Iraq war began, I heard much speculation that we had intelligence that IRAN was going to be invaded, and Iraq was our strategic move to prevent it. I did not hear the news, the television news does not participate in that kind of political speculation (either by choice or by complicity), but I know people who do speculate in such ways.

I am faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more afraid of the dollar being destroyed by our own criminal government than a Chinese invasion fleet landing off our shores.

Well, who isn't?

But add a few more dots on the page and connect those to see that invading our shores is not the only means available to accomplished the same objective.

The US government poses the largest threat to American citizens. It is far more dangerous to American prosperity than any threat posed by any other foreign nation.

That sounds like an ideological statement based of feeling rather than on observation. Perhaps you can say more? As its stands, it implicitly denies that there are capable enemies who seek the downfall of the US. I submit the evidence is overwhelming that there are such enemies-- as there have always been-- to ANY nation.

That does not mean that our government is not a threat to us. I believe our government is a threat to the average American Citizen, but not to the point that I put on a pair of blinders so that I do not see what else is there.

In order to wage a war, the US government must first wage war against private industry here at home.

History does not demonstrate that to be the case. This sounds very much like the statements made by self-avowed communists professors with whom I worked at a University along the lines of all external enemies only seek to treat us better and any harm they do to us is because we deserve it. To them I taunt: As if, there would be no one on the planet with malevolence if only the US would die? Pfft! Yeah, right! The world was a Paradise before the US came on the scene?

Originally posted by kro32

According to the Truman Doctrine we are and I have yet to hear a President say that they are not following that.

That was a turning point in America's foreign policy.

An unconstitutional turning point, like the federal war on drugs or social security.

Not that the constitution matters any more.

Boxer Rebellion Part II.

Europe/Russia/US repeat what we did to China in 1898-1900's....tag team China...slaughter them and chop off their heads/torture them....then demand we need 500,000 pounds of silver each again to keep them our slaves for another 50 years.


What? You weren't taught about the Boxer Rebellion in school?