America Has Two Choices – Ron Paul or War

reply to post by Frira

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?

The main enemies I see to America is in the Black Ops. The president has no oversight or access to information with what is going on. From research, The influx on Nazi scientists from project Paperclip has caused a shift to USA research, development and culture and continued the fascism ideology. The alien topic looks quite complex with many advantages and disadvantages. Tooling up is one thing, going on the war path is one sure fire way to bring in the heat when confronted with advanced civilisations and cultures.

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)

It is good to see you providing some analysis into how the system works and operates. It is unfortunate that you do see a culture of back stabbing, hidden deals, double books and other dirty tricks going on when 3 is not mutually inclusive in 1 and 2. It is also unfortunate that you do not see how this culture is also present in the media, corporate world and war machine.

Are we ignoring the lesson from WWII again?

What happened to Germany when it thought they could take on the world? They had the technology but not the numbers.

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

I do not want to debate the theory here, just leave you with your words "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?"

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.

The internet is changing the dynamics of elections. The main need for funding is with advertising in the media, for advertising on the internet public support is what is required. This is still an emerging technology and the ongoing scandals with rigged voting machines and election manipulation is going to be tough. Thanks for your support though, it all helps.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I have the choice of the unelectable Ron Paul or war?

Then I choose war.

Regards, Skellon.

reply to post by Skellon

Then I choose war.

What do you find appealing about war apart from a job?

War never seems to be the appropriate term for one country consistently invading other countries without provocation. When I think of war, anyway, I think of two groups actively fighting against each other to win some particular spoils. In the case of US foreign policy, it's just a sequence of going from one country to another and bombing them into oblivion without even a clear mission.

If any country seems to actually have nuclear weapons and be threatening the US, it's North Korea, but the US is more interested in attacking the relatively defenseless.

Ultimately the choice is Ron Paul or complete and total economic collapse, followed by likely takeover by the UN or an invasion from any number of countries waiting for a weak moment. Of course the US will be defenseless with a worn out, over-worked, spread-thin military that's mostly off oppressing other countries.

Is there any question that the military-industrial complex is the only real economic front left for the US empire? Go into other countries that can easily be dominated by force, then send in US corporations to "re-build" the battered infrastructure.

My question is that even if Ron Paul is elected, he is only the president, so how is he going to get anything done when all the corporate representatives that make up the "US Government" would block anything he tried to do?

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)

Isn't it a problem after that much time in congress that Paul has never once compromised? With differing political beliefs, meeting somewhere in the middle seems to me the best course of action and showing some willingness to at least try to work with others.

And as for incorruptible...how high is the pedastal that you have him on? Do you need to face his house in Texas five times a day to pray?

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by petrus4

 

From my understanding of your Constitution, a President does not rightfully have the ability to either start or end wars. That power is supposed to belong to the Congress. So if Ron Paul was willing to adhere to the Constitution as you expect him to, that means that he won't have the power to end the wars by himself. That will have to be done by the Congress, and given the Republican Party's apparent desire for war in particular, GOP Congressmen could well decide to vote for the war to continue.

A President alone is not going to have the power to cut your government's military spending, as well. From what I've read, economic appropriations usually have to go through the House of Representatives; the Executive doesn't have the ability to make budget decisions unilaterally.

So if Ron Paul is loyal to your Constitution, he is not going to have the ability, by himself, to do the things that you want him to.

since none of the multitudes of wars the US is engaged in were ever declared, there is nothing for the Congress to end.

and a President willing to use the media to explain the insanity of our military forces being deployed in over 500 overseas military bases, could get the support of the public.

the cold war ended 20 years ago and we are still in Guantanamo, what sane person beleives that Cuba is going to attack the USA?

ask the american people if we should still be in Iraq 60 years from now.

ask if a trillion dollars on Iraq was enough, and how many billions a year we should keep spending.
while asking grandma to pay more for her medicare.

Originally posted by Frira

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?

"legitimate strategic necessities"

..lol.. hitler would love this,.. hey, he could have read "intelligence" that convinced him being a war mongering ass was a strategic necessity... replace muslim with jew and poland with iraq.. viola!!

If the needless death & suffering of millions of strangers too far away to hurt your children is a strategic necessity for the unites states to limp along as a morally & financially bankrupt failing empire.. for humanity sake, this nation should cease to exist and be broken up into pieces too small to terrorize innocent people 1/2 around the world.

reply to post by Frira


"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. "

China invading the middle east?.. lmao, not scared of that and wouldn't care if they did.. the Chinese would go bankrupt in the process of having their ass handed to them.. like whats happening to the current wanna-be occupiers.

Dont care about treaties, words on paper govt gangsters tend to ignore.. and preventing a nuke exchange? n korea, and China..troop movements?..lol.. what? been playing too many games of Risk

Where do people become scared of these things?.. and if you know the future, cough up some lotto numbers. Other peoples business is other peoples business.. people of Earth didn't elect the morons in DC to act as policy makers of the world.. they can't even run this nation!!.. except into the ground.. laughable... especially considering the GOP & DNC have strategically necessitated more innocent people dead & suffering than terrorists could ever dream of.

The whole thing about odumba learning new vital intelligence after entering office is hilarious.. is it possible he just a useful idiot puppet playing his role by lying his ass off?.. or was duping the America public a "strategic necessity"..lol

reply to post by GovtFlu

China invading the middle east?

The approach China has been making here, Africa and else where is working towards long term stability of the region. Conflict and chaos is not profitable for large scale, long term investments, this is strategy

Originally posted by petrus4
Ron Paul will only become your President if the elites say he can.

...yep... no potus has the power to downsize the military industrial complex... even if they did, none would do it because the military and all the civilian companies that supply the MIC are collectively the usofa's biggest employer and the elite's biggest money maker...

Originally posted by GovtFlu

Originally posted by Frira

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?

"legitimate strategic necessities"

..lol.. hitler would love this,..

That is emotional talk, but it is not reason.

Sovereignty of a nation requires the ability to defend its interest considered necessary to the survival of its people and or government. These are called strategic interests. When extremes are used against foreign sovereign nations, the interests being threatened become a seen as a necessity.

Hitler was evil, but the cause of his popularity of the Socialists party was because his war offered the German people a way out of the atrocities of the Treaty of Versailles-- imposed on them because of WWI.

When children become punished by foreign states for the acts of their fathers, the German people rightly rejected a life of futility while their neighbors prospered. War was going to happen, and the Germans had been saying so, but the rest of the world turned a deaf ear.

It is often disingenuous, but common for humans to vilify an enemy-- to provide a target of blame. In Germany between the wars, the Jews with international ties and stronger ethnic identity than national identity were relative prosperous. Turning envy into hate is easy-- it is false, but it is easy.

It gets even more complex, but I am not providing a history seminar. These are not my ideas, this is history, and history is far more complex than you imagine. The world is ancient and history seeks to understand what is common. That effects laws, treaties, educations, religious ideals, and virtually everything we do and study.

In fact, and back to the point I began with... From history, the US showed an appropriate reaction to the causes of WWII in how it treated its former enemies after it. Russia did not learn from that history.

Originally posted by GovtFlu
reply to post by Frira

 

"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. "

China invading the middle east?.. lmao, not scared of that and wouldn't care if they did.. the Chinese would go bankrupt in the process of having their ass handed to them.. like whats happening to the current wanna-be occupiers.

I listed possible political and strategic scenarios which would not be known to the general public, just as the prior post had done concerning aliens or intention to control population. That most people do not know what the real causes of a war are, we are left only with speculation.

You speculate-- that means I get to speculate.

I was not sitting down to right a novel and request the reader for suspension of disbelief only if I could provide a full example of a thousand pages to support the believability of the scenarios off the top of my head.

My speculation, differs from those two which I responded, in that mine draw upon historical models and not the paranormal or science fiction themes. And you laugh, because I appeal to history?

I am not being played, I am applying historical experience.

Dont care about treaties...

Well, governments do care, and governments act on those treaties. Governments do not care if you care or not. Welcome to the brutal world called "reality" over which none of us have the control we would like.

We are probably not very different in our ideals. I do not start violence, but I will react to it.

At a personal level, the use of physical aggression is not always our choice. In each case when I have been hit first, I felt utterly justified in hitting back until I subdued my attacker. So it usually is in war-- one side hits first-- the other side, sometimes, has no motive other than protecting its strategic interests.

Having a strategic interest ought not automatically connote "Hitler." A mugger has the strategic interest in my wallet, and I have the strategic interest in keeping it. And in my life the score is Mugger= Zero; Me and my wallet=Two. I did not talk the muggers out of their strategic interest, rather I defended my own with violence.

Where do people become scared of these things?.. and if you know the future, cough up some lotto numbers. Other peoples business is other peoples business.. people of Earth didn't elect the morons in DC to act as policy makers of the world.. they can't even run this nation!!.. except into the ground.. laughable... especially considering the GOP & DNC have strategically necessitated more innocent people dead & suffering than terrorists could ever dream of.

Maybe. But the body count is not the only consideration. Ever been attacked while minding your own business? I have.

Let's say your work sometimes takes you into dangerous places. The police convinced you that you should carry a concealed weapon and you do. Then let's say you are attacked.

Is it wrong for carrying a weapon if one knows he may encounter a threat?
Is it wrong for physically disabling an attacker?
Let's say the weapon is not concealed, do you think they still would have attacked if they had seen it?

So if I find my innocent self attacked by twenty, and I have to kill all twenty to continue going about my business, does the body count determine what was just... or is it manifest intent?

The whole thing about odumba learning new vital intelligence after entering office is hilarious.. is it possible he just a useful idiot puppet playing his role by lying his ass off?.. or was duping the America public a "strategic necessity"..lol

Yes, it is possible. But I prefer to assume he is a normal human with deeply held values. I prefer to believe he expressed his values honestly, and will continue to live by them; but (like the rest of us) he is constantly re-evaluating as more wisdom and experience is gained.

The world is complex, people are complex, and heroism is sometimes in short supply but necessary to hold to ones values. Unless I can know otherwise, I give him the benefit of the doubt.

That means, there is room for doubt, but it also means that doubt is not the same as knowing.

And so again, we come back to speculation.

lmao...

...laughing...

...lmao...

You laugh at the strangest things. You might want to work on that.

So is Peter Schiff anti-war? I wonder what is the effect of war on gold prices and gold trading? The conspiracy side of me coming out. I think Schiff is pretty solid but it should be explored. Why are all the people who come out and say they like gold anti-war?

reply to post by Novise

Why are all the people who come out and say they like gold anti-war?

What economic sense does it make to be pro-war?

2nd.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


That's the funny thing, because mainstream history tells us that war is good for the economy. Of course it's probably referring to a more fiat money system type of economy, and not a more austrian-economics approach to the economy. So WW2 was "good for the economy" in the short run, even if that short run was a matter of 30 years. I like Schiff, but he just seems to have his priorities in the value of gold first and foremost. Ron Paul seems to see the value of gold as more of a secondary thing, more of a way to judge what is happening in the economy.

reply to post by Novise

So WW2 was "good for the economy" in the short run, even if that short run was a matter of 30 years.

WW2 wasn't even good for the economy in the short run.

Peter Schiff explains that somewhat here:



Robert Higgs explains it more in detail here: link.

I rather have Ron Paul.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


Good points in the video. I guess I just took it for granted to question that the war helped the economy. And when you realize the economy is (now) sort of an artificial thing, it's just easier to believe. Our economy is outside the bounds of reason and so when anyone tries to reason with it, there is no answer. So we accept what we are told in history books almost the same way people accept religious superstition. Unless I want to pretend I'm as bright as those who understand it, and I'm going to spend 20 years studying it, self taught and pure.

Let's face it the world has gotten out of control and the answers to that are very simple and include us giving up luxuries and lavishness (things we don't even consider such but things that simply are such), we don't need bigger we just need common sense.