Ron Paul pro Israel

Yep! Another reason why I will never vote for any politician. I support Israel not the faux state of Israel founded by death condemned by HaShem.

Originally posted by kro32
And what if the surrounding countries put Israel under seige, would Ron Paul lift a finger to help? According to him no he would let them fall.

Nice ally there

You miss the point.. If we weren't manipulating policy in the region these countries might not be so geared up to go to war with one another in the first place. The entire reason there is so much violence in the area could be traced back to England and then later the USA playing Imperial Lords in the region for the past century or so. Israel is a big boy now, and can handle itself. If an attack on Israel presents a threat to the US' security, you can be assured we would get involved in that war, regardless of who was in office.




Also it seems someone should point out the obvious hipocrisy here - You originally attack Ron Paul for supporting Israel, then when his non-intervention principals are explained you attack him for not supporting Israel in some hypothetical situation. Pick a platform waffler.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Very logical points so perhaps i'm more of a pessimist than you are. Once we take our protective curtain off of Israel they will start being pressured relatively quickly I feel and as paranoid as they are I can see them launching a nuke off to send a message requiring retaliation from other country with nuclear weapons. I would rather err on the side of caution in this instance.

reply to post by Backslider


These countries have made war without our interference in the past. Do you not remember the Ottoman Empire and it's push into Europe?

reply to post by kro32


I don't think Israel is suicidal either. They have a top notch Air Force, and top notch Special Forces, I think they could make a very strong showing of deterrence without resorting to one of their 300 Nukes.

Also, only Pakistan and India are Nuclear-armed in the region, and India is quickly partnering with the US to replace China as our biggest trade ally. India won't mess with Israel. Pakistan has already allowed the US to violate their borders at will. They are not a threat to anyone.

Sure, Israel will likely be challenged very quickly after a Ron Paul election, but without the US holding back on their leash, they will respond appropriately, and a natural peace can come to fruition, instead of a US orchestrated peace.

Well, I really hate to contribute to such a piss poor post, but I will just to show how bad it really is.

Firstly, this is an OPINION, posted on a "fan site" by an anonymous author.
What ever is prefaced or suggested by them is their own opinion.

As to the speech itself, one must understand non-interventionist foreign policy first. Then a clear understanding of the qualifier 'Pro' must be understood in this context. Ron Paul is not 'Pro' any country except America.
Ron Paul is 'Pro' staying out of the affairs of other nations - all of them.
He explains that the middle east would be better off without our constant interference. He has stated many times that all foreign aid should stop, including Israel.
It is our meddling over there that has created all of these problems. Ron Paul is the only one that seems to get that.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I'm afraid that once Israel responds, even without using nukes, that peace will no longer be a word used in relation to the Middle East.

reply to post by kro32


I call it my "dog in the yard theory."

I can take a dozen mean and mangy dogs and toss them into the yard, and walk away. They will fight for a little while, but eventually a pecking order is formed, and none of the dogs usually get serious injuries.

On the other hand, if I stay in the yard with them, and try to intefere, the fight will last and last and last, and the dogs will sustain repeated and serious injuries, and I may become injured myself.

The Middle East would follow this same theory. There will be some skirmishes, but if we do not interfere, then the skirmishes will be short-lived and relatively harmless. If we keep agitating both sides, then the skirmishes become full-fledged wars, and everyone loses.

Why do people wrap this up in the same decorative wrapping paper as Zionism? It doesn't matter why we are where we are. Let us start conducting ourselves with wisdom. This includes developing a true friendship with Israel and also Arab countries. To portray this principle as the same held by Zionists is flatly ignorant.

Some folks are unhappy unless there choice for leader pretends he/she can (and will) use US influence and might to change the world..

Dr. Paul simply wants to use those resources for America's direct benefit instead of for those whose hearts lie in transnational corporate empires and other countries which they might miss out on exploiting.

But, carry on with your characterizations... they are amusing (and sort of dated.)

He also thinks Global Warming is a hoax.

I would vote for him over Newt Gingrich over this issue, but that doesn't say much.