The Down Range Forum

Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Teresa Heilevang on July 09, 2008, 05:13:30 PM

Title: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: Teresa Heilevang on July 09, 2008, 05:13:30 PM

At the beginning of the election period when there was everyone and their dog running for Prez.. I thought Ron Paul was a bit "out there".. But the more I listened to him and the more I read of what he was saying..
 well...(as a Libertarian)  He would have been who I would have marked my X by...
Fred.. Paul...  those who have the brains to be in the "Oval Office"..are sadly standing in the  "Outer Office."  :(

This is good and is the closest to anything I have heard that makes sense in a while.

So.......... all you political brains..
"Talk to me"....What do you think?


http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=115
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: ericire12 on July 09, 2008, 05:44:31 PM
Ron Paul is ok...... right up to the point where you hear him talk about how he would handle foreign affairs. Then he ventures down the road towards the funny farm.
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: Teresa Heilevang on July 09, 2008, 07:57:47 PM
okay.. explain what he wants to do in foreign affairs  in layman terms.. ( sometimes Ron Paul talks like he is John Adams reincarnate..and I have a hard time really getting a grasp on it.

 
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: twyacht on July 09, 2008, 09:06:03 PM
okay.. explain what he wants to do in foreign affairs  in layman terms.. ( sometimes Ron Talks like he is John Adams reincarnate..and I have a hard time really getting a grasp on it.

 

Hello Marshal'ette and forum, Ron Paul strikes a chord with a lot of Americans, he talks about issues in "real terms", other politicians are scripted to say. With Congressional approval at a historic 9%, and Bush's around 28% +/-, he sparked a "fed up with Washington crap" movement with record internet support, a large group of younger voters, among many others, that ARE fed up with Washington crap!. (Like most of us)

The Big BUTT, as ericire12 stated; ( there were countless interviews which he did, (credit for that)), however, his foreign policy sounds good , but won't work in todays world.  Paul is an isolationist, all troops out now, possibly withdraw from the UN(which I kinda like, but is it going to happen?) Let the world do what its going to do, and focus on America.,.. That sounds great. But won't happen right now. If Opec has flatulence, OUR gas goes up another .02 cents. Our lives are affected by the global economy.

Let alone Homeland Security. There is a culture of people that want to kill you, your children, your family, doesn't matter, let alone as many able bodied men they can take in a cowardly fashion,....and Paul's foreign policy is defensive NOT offensive.

As usual my .02 cents.  Don't be too hard on me, I'm fragile. 8)



Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: JohnJacobH on July 09, 2008, 09:36:30 PM
okay.. explain what he wants to do in foreign affairs  in layman terms.. ( sometimes Ron Talks like he is John Adams reincarnate..and I have a hard time really getting a grasp on it.

 

Ron Paul is and was the only person to understand,suggest and remind the American Public about the use, nature and purpose of
Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

It is in the Constitution, but not a great favorite of the Globalist Intervention Crowd.

For what it is worth.

Best regards,
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: Teresa Heilevang on July 09, 2008, 10:08:18 PM
Thanks.. I knew and understood his ideas.. I just didn't know the make up around it. ( did that make sense?)
I get so confused with all of it. Lots of things sound good.. I'm just not smart enough on policy to know if they will hold water if they are put in effect.

Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: brosometal on July 09, 2008, 11:01:13 PM
Ron Paul is and was the only person to understand,suggest and remind the American Public about the use, nature and purpose of
Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

It is in the Constitution, but not a great favorite of the Globalist Intervention Crowd.

For what it is worth.

Best regards,

For a quick primer:

http://www.progress.org/fold232.htm (http://www.progress.org/fold232.htm)

While in theory this sounds all well and good plus it's strait from the good ole constitution, but what are the pratical ramifications?  Who would fullfill the letters?  Blackwater type orgs?  Private citizens?  That is the sticky wicket.  This was an answer to privateers or pirates, bascically small bands of brigands typically on the high seas, not the well armed, loosely organized terror operations of today.  How would private citizens operate in a forgein country without the "big stick" of the US government?  Let's say JohnJacobH, Hazcat, and myself step off a jet back in 2001 in Kabul.  We walk over to baggage and pick up a few rifles and head on down to the Khyber Pass intent on wackin' some Tallyban.  Not terribly effective.  Now lets insert Blackwater.  They have access to more weapons etc., but I wouldn't bet on spectacular results (I have been wrong before).  Now lets remember reality.  There were several groups of goat F-ers out in a field tending the loves of their lives... damn JDAM and a smoking crater.  I may be a bit bias but I think the last approach is the right one.  I guess I have a foot in the globalist intervetion crowd.  Kinda like the guy in the last row house on the block helping the guy four houses down fight a fire:  sooner or later it will be in my house as well.

From the article:

Since we have lost our confidence in the principles of liberty, self reliance, hard work and frugality, and instead took on empire building...

This is were Mr. Paul looses me and, I imagine, many others.  I have lost no confidence in any of the above metioned priciples, again, as I imagine many other haven't.  Doom!  Dispair!  I believe we should concentrate on attainable goals, and many of the others will fall into place.  The first and easiest place is education.  If you have kids, take them out of the public schools.  They are indoctriation camps.  Incourage relative and friends to do the same.  Most of the leftist teaching today happens before a child is able to think for himself.  If your child must be in a public school, take time to challege everything he is taught.  It is called critical thinking and it is a dying art form.  (And just a quick pet peeve:  Empire building?  If the US were empire building we wouldn't be the only superpower, we would be the only hemisphere.  We give back territory after armed conflicts i.e. Japan, Cuba, et. al.)

Without starting my manifesto, I believe Mr. Paul and dyed-in-the-wool Libertarians have several good ideas in the domestic areana.  However, when they step on to the world stage they loose a lot of credibility. 

Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: ericire12 on July 10, 2008, 12:50:08 PM
M'ette-

Here is a good no nonsense run down on Ron Paul and where he stands on the issues (Its an easy and quick read):

http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm


Here are the highlights:

 Ron Paul on Foreign Policy


      * Can't spread our goodness through the barrel of a gun. (Feb 2008)
    * We tax people to blow up bridges overseas then rebuild them. (Jan 2008)
    * Cut off all foreign aid to Israel & to Arabs. (Dec 2007)
    * Get out of South Korea and let two Koreas unify. (Dec 2007)
    * Bush humble foreign policy was hijacked into nation-building. (Dec 2007)
    * US must obey treaties human rights abroad. (Dec 2007)
    * Focus on the Iraq war and foreign policy. (Dec 2007)
    * Stop interfering with Latin America; talk & trade instead. (Dec 2007)
    * Empires usually end by spending too much to maintain empire. (Dec 2007)
    * Stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy. (Nov 2007)
    * No constitutional or moral authority for US action in Darfur. (Sep 2007)
    * Don't pressure Israel to give up land for promise of peace. (Sep 2007)
    * Not US role to monitor eradication of legal slavery in Sudan. (Sep 2007)
    * Avoid ratifying Law of the Sea Treaty. (Sep 2007)
    * Right to spread our values, but wrong to spread by force. (Aug 2007)
    * Interventionism perpetuated by politician's false patriotism. (Jun 2007)
    * No foreign aid; no treaties that commit US to future wars. (Jun 2007)
    * Our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests. (Jun 2007)
    * Bush mistake: ran on humble foreign policy; now runs empire. (Jun 2007)
    * Non-intervention is traditional American & Republican policy. (May 2007)
    * Avoid double standard--follow international law. (Jun 2006)
    * No nation-building; no world policeman; no pre-emptive war. (Jan 2006)
    * UN membership leads to impractical military conflicts. (Feb 2003)
    * Neutrality on Israel-Palestine; start by defunding both. (Dec 2001)
    * Policy of non-intervention, neutrality, & independence. (Dec 1987)
    * $140B to protect Europe creates competitive disadvantage. (Dec 1987)
    * Foreign aid helps dictators, not the people of aided country. (Dec 1987)
    * Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
    * Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
    * Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
    * Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
    * Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
    * Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
    * Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
    * Allow Americans to travel to Cuba. (May 2000)
    * Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful . (Dec 2000)
    * Ban foreign aid to oil-producers who restrict production. (May 2001)
    * Sponsored bill invalidating International Criminal Court. (Mar 2003)
    * Sponsored bill to end the Cuban embargo. (Apr 2003)
    * Sponsored resolution to withdraw from UNESCO. (Jun 2004)



Basically a total isolationist....... If he had been in charge back when Hitler was around, then Hitler would have ruled the world and Paul would have just sat back and watched.



----> He also thinks 9/11 was our fault:
*9/11 resulted from blasphemy of our bases in Saudi Arabia. (Dec 2007)
*Suicide terrorism stops when we stop intervening abroad. (Dec 2007)
*We don't need any troops abroad--they don't help our defense. (Dec 2007)
*Habeas corpus always applies, even to Guantanamo. (Dec 2007) (That means that all terrorists have the right to a day in a U.S. court - Innocent until proven guilty)
*Governments orchestrate fear to throw their weight around. (Jun 2007)
*Military aggressiveness weakens our national defense. (May 2007)
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: polo on July 10, 2008, 12:53:41 PM
You didn't mention his viewpoint on the IRS:

"Abolish it"

"What would you replace it with?"

"Nothing"

What a great idea!
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: atmiller on July 10, 2008, 02:37:40 PM
I think he is very right on some issues, and very wrong on others. 

Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: unique on July 10, 2008, 03:23:43 PM
Actually, his views don't matter, he's not going to get elected, plain and simple.  What he will do is pull votes from McCain and put Obama in the White House, that's what really matters.
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: tumblebug on July 10, 2008, 04:40:57 PM
 BULL'S EYE
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: JohnJacobH on July 10, 2008, 08:40:36 PM

Let's say JohnJacobH, Hazcat, and myself step off a jet back in 2001 in Kabul.  We walk over to baggage and pick up a few rifles and head on down to the Khyber Pass intent on wackin' some Tallyban. 



Well, you know, that is pretty much what H.Ross Perot did not too so terribly long ago.

In 1979, two EDS employees were taken hostage by the Iranian government. Perot directed a successful rescue mission composed of EDS employees and led by retired Green Beret Colonel Arthur “Bull” Simons. Perot himself went to Iran and entered the prison where his men were held. Ken Follett wrote a best selling novel, On Wings of Eagles, about the rescue. An NBC TV miniseries was later made from the book.


http://www.famoustexans.com/rossperot.htm (http://www.famoustexans.com/rossperot.htm)

Do not underestimate the power of a small band of dedicated operators. After all, just such a band of 19 blew up a few billion dollars of American real estate with little more than boxcutters for weapons on 09/11/01. Or so I am told.

Best regards,
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: brosometal on July 10, 2008, 10:45:45 PM
Well, you know, that is pretty much what H.Ross Perot did not too so terribly long ago.

In 1979, two EDS employees were taken hostage by the Iranian government. Perot directed a successful rescue mission composed of EDS employees and led by retired Green Beret Colonel Arthur “Bull” Simons. Perot himself went to Iran and entered the prison where his men were held. Ken Follett wrote a best selling novel, On Wings of Eagles, about the rescue. An NBC TV miniseries was later made from the book.


http://www.famoustexans.com/rossperot.htm (http://www.famoustexans.com/rossperot.htm)

Do not underestimate the power of a small band of dedicated operators. After all, just such a band of 19 blew up a few billion dollars of American real estate with little more than boxcutters for weapons on 09/11/01. Or so I am told.

Best regards,


Thanks.  I am talking practicality and would rather pay for the fireworks.  There is something nice about spontaneous explosion via the US Air Force.  The effect of "shock and awe" is better received in the Arab world (a good read Saddam’s Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein). 

And equating Haz, you and I to the 9/11 fella's... well thems may be fightin' words.

All that aside, I detect a bit of, how to say, tin foil hat conspiracy in your tone (..."or so I am told."). Let a brotha know.

Back to the main point.  I would fully encourage anyone willing and able to wack a few terrorists for the cause, but equating the rescue of two hostages to the present conflict?  Apples and oranges my friend.  Let us examine.  In your example, Ross and Co. rescued the two hostages.   Great.  Define the victory:  Two people that are no longer hostages.  Now the present conflict:  The waters are a little more muddy.  Different folks will have different definitions of victory, but the "evildoers" just want to see the infidel bodies stacked high (I say return the favor in spades).  It does not matter how they kill just as long as they are able to.  I prefer that it be done in a foreign land like Iraq or Afghanistan.  History has shown that containment (Neville Chamberlain) and isolationism are poor "answers".  Pres. Bush took a different tact and History will have to be the ultimate judge.

To sum up, my R would be an L save the pitiful excuse for foreign policy of the Libertarian party.
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: tombogan03884 on July 11, 2008, 04:06:55 AM
For a quick primer:

http://www.progress.org/fold232.htm (http://www.progress.org/fold232.htm)

While in theory this sounds all well and good plus it's strait from the good ole constitution, but what are the pratical ramifications?  Who would fullfill the letters?  Blackwater type orgs?  Private citizens?  That is the sticky wicket.  This was an answer to privateers or pirates, bascically small bands of brigands typically on the high seas, not the well armed, loosely organized terror operations of today.  How would private citizens operate in a forgein country without the "big stick" of the US government?  Let's say JohnJacobH, Hazcat, and myself step off a jet back in 2001 in Kabul.  We walk over to baggage and pick up a few rifles and head on down to the Khyber Pass intent on wackin' some Tallyban.  Not terribly effective.  Now lets insert Blackwater.  They have access to more weapons etc., but I wouldn't bet on spectacular results (I have been wrong before).  Now lets remember reality.  There were several groups of goat F-ers out in a field tending the loves of their lives... damn JDAM and a smoking crater.  I may be a bit bias but I think the last approach is the right one.  I guess I have a foot in the globalist intervetion crowd.  Kinda like the guy in the last row house on the block helping the guy four houses down fight a fire:  sooner or later it will be in my house as well.

From the article:

Since we have lost our confidence in the principles of liberty, self reliance, hard work and frugality, and instead took on empire building...

This is were Mr. Paul looses me and, I imagine, many others.  I have lost no confidence in any of the above metioned priciples, again, as I imagine many other haven't.  Doom!  Dispair!  I believe we should concentrate on attainable goals, and many of the others will fall into place.  The first and easiest place is education.  If you have kids, take them out of the public schools.  They are indoctriation camps.  Incourage relative and friends to do the same.  Most of the leftist teaching today happens before a child is able to think for himself.  If your child must be in a public school, take time to challege everything he is taught.  It is called critical thinking and it is a dying art form.  (And just a quick pet peeve:  Empire building?  If the US were empire building we wouldn't be the only superpower, we would be the only hemisphere.  We give back territory after armed conflicts i.e. Japan, Cuba, et. al.)

Without starting my manifesto, I believe Mr. Paul and dyed-in-the-wool Libertarians have several good ideas in the domestic areana.  However, when they step on to the world stage they loose a lot of credibility. 





Ron Paul is a strict "Jeffersonian democrat", and it's supposed to have a small  "d".  ;D
The problem arises with the FACT that Jeffersonian democracy as perfectly thought out, and well grounded in the Constitution, as it was did not even work for  Jefferson.  He had spent years working to limit Naval expense and military spending by arguing the same non involvement in foreign affairs, to the extent that our sailors had to endure British press gangs, until he became President and had to deal with the Barbary  (North African Muslims ) Pirates.
He tried all the modern nostrums, "Engagement," He tried talking to them, the longer they talked, the more US ships were seized, He tried "Foreign aide", more honestly know back then as "Tribute" and" Bribery", the more we paid, the more they demanded, and still more Americans enslaved and ships taken.
Finally with inflated insurance rates strangling the governments primary source of funding  Jefferson was left with no choice  but to create the US Navy to go over and kick a$$. We've had free passage of the Med. ever since.
 Jimmy  Carter, had the same result when HE tried to let the world go it's own way, Oil embargo, Canal giveaway, then the Iran hostage situation. "THEY" blame the failure of the rescue attempt on poor "Joint Coordination" and inter - service bickering. That may have contributed, but the true cause of the failure at "Desert One" was in the underfunding of National Defense. Some of my fellow Marines, (married, with children, Base housing) qualified for food stamps and other welfare benefits.
We replaced transmissions, engines, we could even take all the parts off a jeep uni body (M151 Mutt) and build a new one with the parts. If we had parts. We actually spent 6 months doing triage, some we could fix now, some later, some were cannibalized. Then from Oct. (the start of the fiscal year ) till around New years we waited for the "Honored Gentleman" to quit playing politics with the budget and get us some funding, even paychecks were "iffy". I don't recall ever missing a check, but the doubt was always there.finally we would get parts fix stuff like crazy and run out of funding after about 3 months. This was in  support of the "Front line" troops. This is not rumor, this happened TO ME, While I was on Med Cruise, a couple hundred miles off Lebanon during their one of their Civil wars, My platoon Sgt. and I are doing inspections on the trucks that towed our Artillery Battery,They were junk. No brakes, Doors FELL OFF, Plt.Sgt. is checking the engine on one truck, yells for me to shut it off, keeps yelling till I whacked him with the broken shut off cable that was Supposed to be firmly attached to the engine.
Just to prove that the cause and effect is not an American phenomenon there is the example of Neville Chamberlain, he starved the British Armed Forces , and basically gave Hitler anything he wanted for "Peace in OUR TIME".
We all know how that turned out   :( 
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: shooter32 on July 11, 2008, 08:34:55 AM
Tom , Right on the money!!!
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: Teresa Heilevang on July 11, 2008, 10:17:47 AM
Thank you guys so much! Now THAT clears up a ton of stuff for me.
I really do have a hard time sometimes sifting through all the cornmeal to find the weavels. (my grandma used to say that  ;) )

And I also don't have a lot of patience sometimes to take the time to do it either.
 You guys all should be political teachers ..

hmmmm lets see...

Down Range University...

Professors on staff:
Tombogan
Ericire
Brosometel
Twyacht
John Jacob


Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: tombogan03884 on July 11, 2008, 11:38:48 AM
Thank you guys so much! Now THAT clears up a ton of stuff for me.
I really do have a hard time sometimes sifting through all the cornmeal to find the weavels. (my grandma used to say that  ;) )

And I also don't have a lot of patience sometimes to take the time to do it either.
 You guys all should be political teachers ..

hmmmm lets see...

Down Range University...

Professors on staff:
Tombogan
Ericire
Brosometel
Twyacht
John Jacob


 Can't forget our "Smart a$$ Emeritus : Hazcat  ;D
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: Teresa Heilevang on July 11, 2008, 12:14:39 PM
Haz is a professor alright.. but it isn't in the "politics room"..

 ;D ;D
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: Hazcat on July 11, 2008, 12:39:20 PM
Scatology?  ;D
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: jaybet on July 11, 2008, 12:58:10 PM
Scatology?  ;D

HazScat?
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: tombogan03884 on July 11, 2008, 01:39:07 PM
Haz is a professor alright.. but it isn't in the "politics room"..

 ;D ;D

Haz and M'ette should be listed as "Directors of Research" they find so many of the interesting stories.
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: ericire12 on July 11, 2008, 05:34:36 PM
Thank you guys so much! Now THAT clears up a ton of stuff for me.
I really do have a hard time sometimes sifting through all the cornmeal to find the weavels. (my grandma used to say that  ;) )

And I also don't have a lot of patience sometimes to take the time to do it either.
 



M'ette-

This is a really great site that cuts through the bullshit and lets you know what any and every politician is really about:

http://www.issues2000.org
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: JohnJacobH on July 11, 2008, 08:59:53 PM
Thanks.  I am talking practicality and would rather pay for the fireworks.  There is something nice about spontaneous explosion via the US Air Force.  The effect of "shock and awe" is better received in the Arab world (a good read Saddam’s Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein). 

And equating Haz, you and I to the 9/11 fella's... well thems may be fightin' words.

All that aside, I detect a bit of, how to say, tin foil hat conspiracy in your tone (..."or so I am told."). Let a brotha know.




Methinks I detect a bit of, how to say, ad hominem in your tone for a mere statement of fact.

 * I have been told*,  is a simple truth. I must bring my knowledge and experience to bear on those details available for me to examine.

Now on the other hand,, from your point of view it seems you should pick a side and stick with it. 

Either the only effective means of communication is from a large centrally organized well funded effort (shock and awe) or a small band of under-financed but highly dedicated gung ho operators can have an impact far beyond their relative strength. You can not have it both ways.

If shock and awe is only feasible option then the 19 plane hijackers had assistance far outside their publicized capabilities. That is no tin foil hat, that is simple deduction.

On the other hand if you, me and Hazcat were on Flight 93 and made a decision this atrocity would not happen on our watch regardless of the consequences to others on board, (including the chiiiildren-- and acted on that decision are we heros or just a slightly different set of wackos?  Todd Beamer might not appreciate someone who referred to him as a tinfoil hat type if he were with us today.

Osama bin Laden issued a fatwah. If the United States refused to learn some manners in the Arab Tradition he would personally see to it some Arabs climb up our collective shoelace and bite us in the ankle. Hence September 11, 2001.

Ron Paul suggested what the CCW self defense community refers to as a PROPORTIONATE Response with his suggestion we match the fatwah with the Constitutionally permissible Letter of Marquee and Reprisal.

To wit(as an example):

 This Administration has learned of a  written threat (fatwah) against the United States from a group of unknown non-governmentally associated individuals.  I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to reserve a sum of $100,000,000 to be paid as a reward in increments or in total to those people who capture or kill any or all individuals acting in concert to carry out the terms and conditions of this fatwah against the United States or the citizens thereof.

Now if you wish to argue the merits of this approach, argue the merits, not the ad hominem tinfoil.

Best regards,






Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: JohnJacobH on July 11, 2008, 09:03:51 PM


Down Range University...

Professors on staff:
Tombogan
Ericire
Brosometel
Twyacht
John Jacob




Speaking for myself you are most gracious and far too kind.  But do not stop. I always appreciate the good thoughts.

Best regards,
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: tombogan03884 on July 11, 2008, 09:18:29 PM
Methinks I detect a bit of, how to say, ad hominem in your tone for a mere statement of fact.

 * I have been told*,  is a simple truth. I must bring my knowledge and experience to bear on those details available for me to examine.

Now on the other hand,, from your point of view it seems you should pick a side and stick with it. 

Either the only effective means of communication is from a large centrally organized well funded effort (shock and awe) or a small band of under-financed but highly dedicated gung ho operators can have an impact far beyond their relative strength. You can not have it both ways.

If shock and awe is only feasible option then the 19 plane hijackers had assistance far outside their publicized capabilities. That is no tin foil hat, that is simple deduction.

On the other hand if you, me and Hazcat were on Flight 93 and made a decision this atrocity would not happen on our watch regardless of the consequences to others on board, (including the chiiiildren-- and acted on that decision are we heros or just a slightly different set of wackos?  Todd Beamer might not appreciate someone who referred to him as a tinfoil hat type if he were with us today.

Osama bin Laden issued a fatwah. If the United States refused to learn some manners in the Arab Tradition he would personally see to it some Arabs climb up our collective shoelace and bite us in the ankle. Hence September 11, 2001.

Ron Paul suggested what the CCW self defense community refers to as a PROPORTIONATE Response with his suggestion we match the fatwah with the Constitutionally permissible Letter of Marquee and Reprisal.

To wit(as an example):

 This Administration has learned of a  written threat (fatwah) against the United States from a group of unknown non-governmentally associated individuals.  I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to reserve a sum of $100,000,000 to be paid as a reward in increments or in total to those people who capture or kill any or all individuals acting in concert to carry out the terms and conditions of this fatwah against the United States or the citizens thereof.

Now if you wish to argue the merits of this approach, argue the merits, not the ad hominem tinfoil.

Best regards,


In today's situation its NOT an impractical solution. The internet gives an individual nearly the same capabilities as CIA, Which would have been a more cost effective method of taking out Saddam, 6 guys and some Barrett .50's or a multi division invasion ?
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: brosometal on July 12, 2008, 10:30:14 PM
Methinks I detect a bit of, how to say, ad hominem in your tone for a mere statement of fact.

 * I have been told*,  is a simple truth. I must bring my knowledge and experience to bear on those details available for me to examine.

Now on the other hand,, from your point of view it seems you should pick a side and stick with it. 

Either the only effective means of communication is from a large centrally organized well funded effort (shock and awe) or a small band of under-financed but highly dedicated gung ho operators can have an impact far beyond their relative strength. You can not have it both ways.

If shock and awe is only feasible option then the 19 plane hijackers had assistance far outside their publicized capabilities. That is no tin foil hat, that is simple deduction.

On the other hand if you, me and Hazcat were on Flight 93 and made a decision this atrocity would not happen on our watch regardless of the consequences to others on board, (including the chiiiildren-- and acted on that decision are we heros or just a slightly different set of wackos?  Todd Beamer might not appreciate someone who referred to him as a tinfoil hat type if he were with us today.

Osama bin Laden issued a fatwah. If the United States refused to learn some manners in the Arab Tradition he would personally see to it some Arabs climb up our collective shoelace and bite us in the ankle. Hence September 11, 2001.

Ron Paul suggested what the CCW self defense community refers to as a PROPORTIONATE Response with his suggestion we match the fatwah with the Constitutionally permissible Letter of Marquee and Reprisal.

To wit(as an example):

 This Administration has learned of a  written threat (fatwah) against the United States from a group of unknown non-governmentally associated individuals.  I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to reserve a sum of $100,000,000 to be paid as a reward in increments or in total to those people who capture or kill any or all individuals acting in concert to carry out the terms and conditions of this fatwah against the United States or the citizens thereof.

Now if you wish to argue the merits of this approach, argue the merits, not the ad hominem tinfoil.

Best regards,








Wow! I make a simple observation of communication and I get wacked with an ad hominem charge.  Your honor, I would like to plead not guilty.  Conversations such as ours are usually better in person and over a friendly adult beverage, however travel expenses would eat heavily into entertainment expenses so we are stuck with the written word.  If it isn't already apparent, I am a bit of a smartdonkey.  And while serious in my views, I usually impart them in a tougue-and-cheek manner.  I have found that while people may disagree with views I convey, the the lighter tone allows for an easier exchange of said ideas.  Hey, maybe I've been getting it wrong.  Let a brotha know.

Now back to the discussion at hand.  Here is the original quote in question (2 q's in that one).

"After all, just such a band of 19 blew up a few billion dollars of American real estate with little more than boxcutters for weapons on 09/11/01. Or so I am told."

I read this statement, innocent enough.  In a context of Ron Paul, I have to ask myself, "Why add the ...'Or so I am told?'"  When added at the end of a factual statement, it would lead some readers to think that this may not be a fact, but a manufactured "truth".  These were my thoughts:  Hey, its a freeish country the last time I checked.  Then my hamster started runnin' on his wheel and I added Ron Paul and truth and 9/11 and wha-la 9/11 truther!  As stated before it is a freeish country and you have the right to be wrong (as I may be).  This wasn't the main thrust of the thread so I mentioned it in passing in a silly light.  (I have never seen a 9/11 truther in a tin foil hat, but there is a nice website if the need should arise http://www.ericisgreat.com/tinfoilhats/index.html (http://www.ericisgreat.com/tinfoilhats/index.html))  I, in no way, implied that Todd Beamer wore a tin foil hat.  If that is the impression I gave, I am sorry my sense of written humor is lacking, but I digress.

The option you stated for dealing with the present terrorist problem is a good one, but does not solve the problem completely.  No singular answer will.  The black and white of the options in you post do not reflect reality ("Either the only effective means of communication is from a large centrally organized well funded effort (shock and awe) or a small band of under-financed but highly dedicated gung ho operators can have an impact far beyond their relative strength. You can not have it both ways.").  We have a buffet to work with not a single course meal.  I appreciate the strict adhesion to the constitution.  As Tombogan put in his post, "The problem arises with the FACT that Jeffersonian democracy as perfectly thought out, and well grounded in the Constitution, as it was did not even work for  Jefferson."  I may be missing some of your argument, so please state your solution. 

One other thing:  You mention the idea of a "PROPORTIONATE Response".  I believe that when malicious intent is used in harming or killing American Citizens there should be a disproportionate response.  Make the cost of such act a terrible price, and if they wish to seek their 72 virgins dispatch them in a Sherman's-march-to-the-sea type of fashion.
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: tombogan03884 on July 12, 2008, 10:59:45 PM
Machiavelli Said that when it is necessary to harm a man, you must harm him so badly that his revenge need not be feared.
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: JohnJacobH on July 13, 2008, 10:51:11 AM




I read this statement, innocent enough.  In a context of Ron Paul, I have to ask myself, "Why add the ...'Or so I am told?'"  When added at the end of a factual statement, it would lead some readers to think that this may not be a fact, but a manufactured "truth".  These were my thoughts:  Hey, its a freeish country the last time I checked.  Then my hamster started runnin' on his wheel and I added Ron Paul and truth and 9/11 and wha-la 9/11 truther!  As stated before it is a freeish country and you have the right to be wrong (as I may be).  This wasn't the main thrust of the thread so I mentioned it in passing in a silly light.  (I have never seen a 9/11 truther in a tin foil hat, but there is a nice website if the need should arise http://www.ericisgreat.com/tinfoilhats/index.html (http://www.ericisgreat.com/tinfoilhats/index.html))  I, in no way, implied that Todd Beamer wore a tin foil hat.  If that is the impression I gave, I am sorry my sense of written humor is lacking, but I digress.

 




Well, my brotha from another mother, I am no forensic grammarian and I certainly have put in zero time with the CIA Linguistics unit, but when a smart donkey fills up not one but two written communications with ......

tin foil hat

9/11 truthier

hamster running on his wheel

and includes a link to a tinfoil hat website a brotha should be forgiven for the thought  he is in the presence of one big quacking ad hominem duck.

Your honor, the defendent's actions belie his words, the people ask remand.

Again, if you want to argue the merits, argue the merits, leave the donkey at home and teach the hamster wheels can spin clockwise as well as counterclockwise.

Try to avoid the both-ways argument though. The devil is always in the details and a proprotionate response does not necessarily exclude a disproportionate use of force.

Best regards,





Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: DesertMarine on July 13, 2008, 04:34:57 PM
M'ette-

Here is a good no nonsense run down on Ron Paul and where he stands on the issues (Its an easy and quick read):

http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm


Here are the highlights:

 Ron Paul on Foreign Policy


      * Can't spread our goodness through the barrel of a gun. (Feb 2008)
    * We tax people to blow up bridges overseas then rebuild them. (Jan 2008)
    * Cut off all foreign aid to Israel & to Arabs. (Dec 2007)
    * Get out of South Korea and let two Koreas unify. (Dec 2007)
    * Bush humble foreign policy was hijacked into nation-building. (Dec 2007)
    * US must obey treaties human rights abroad. (Dec 2007)
    * Focus on the Iraq war and foreign policy. (Dec 2007)
    * Stop interfering with Latin America; talk & trade instead. (Dec 2007)
    * Empires usually end by spending too much to maintain empire. (Dec 2007)
    * Stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy. (Nov 2007)
    * No constitutional or moral authority for US action in Darfur. (Sep 2007)
    * Don't pressure Israel to give up land for promise of peace. (Sep 2007)
    * Not US role to monitor eradication of legal slavery in Sudan. (Sep 2007)
    * Avoid ratifying Law of the Sea Treaty. (Sep 2007)
    * Right to spread our values, but wrong to spread by force. (Aug 2007)
    * Interventionism perpetuated by politician's false patriotism. (Jun 2007)
    * No foreign aid; no treaties that commit US to future wars. (Jun 2007)
    * Our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests. (Jun 2007)
    * Bush mistake: ran on humble foreign policy; now runs empire. (Jun 2007)
    * Non-intervention is traditional American & Republican policy. (May 2007)
    * Avoid double standard--follow international law. (Jun 2006)
    * No nation-building; no world policeman; no pre-emptive war. (Jan 2006)
    * UN membership leads to impractical military conflicts. (Feb 2003)
    * Neutrality on Israel-Palestine; start by defunding both. (Dec 2001)
    * Policy of non-intervention, neutrality, & independence. (Dec 1987)
    * $140B to protect Europe creates competitive disadvantage. (Dec 1987)
    * Foreign aid helps dictators, not the people of aided country. (Dec 1987)
    * Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
    * Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
    * Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
    * Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
    * Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
    * Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
    * Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
    * Allow Americans to travel to Cuba. (May 2000)
    * Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful . (Dec 2000)
    * Ban foreign aid to oil-producers who restrict production. (May 2001)
    * Sponsored bill invalidating International Criminal Court. (Mar 2003)
    * Sponsored bill to end the Cuban embargo. (Apr 2003)
    * Sponsored resolution to withdraw from UNESCO. (Jun 2004)



Basically a total isolationist....... If he had been in charge back when Hitler was around, then Hitler would have ruled the world and Paul would have just sat back and watched.



----> He also thinks 9/11 was our fault:
*9/11 resulted from blasphemy of our bases in Saudi Arabia. (Dec 2007)
*Suicide terrorism stops when we stop intervening abroad. (Dec 2007)
*We don't need any troops abroad--they don't help our defense. (Dec 2007)
*Habeas corpus always applies, even to Guantanamo. (Dec 2007) (That means that all terrorists have the right to a day in a U.S. court - Innocent until proven guilty)
*Governments orchestrate fear to throw their weight around. (Jun 2007)
*Military aggressiveness weakens our national defense. (May 2007)

You said it a whole lot better than what I can. 
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: JohnJacobH on July 13, 2008, 05:36:36 PM
You said it a whole lot better than what I can. 

You will no doubt enjoy reading what Ron Paul actually said rather than accept conclusions about him given to you from elsewhere:


***********************************************************************

Can't spread our goodness through the barrel of a gun
Truly conservative in the sense of the words "to conserve our true values" means being serious about taking our oath of office to the Constitution. Limit the government's size, the spending, the deficits, and the exposure around the world. If the US is as great as I believe it should be and can be and has been, we will have influence around the world. We cannot spread our greatness and our goodness through the barrel of a gun. It fails because it destroys our goodness by doing it that way.
Source: Speeches to 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference Feb 7, 2008

We tax people to blow up bridges overseas then rebuild them
We have a foreign policy where we blow up bridges overseas and then we tax the people to go over and rebuild the bridges overseas and our bridges and infrastructure are falling down. We have a $1 trillion foreign operation to operate our empire. That's where the money is. You can't keep borrowing from China and keep printing the money. We have to cut some spending. We have to have faith and confidence that the market works, but you can't do any of that unless you look at the monetary system.
Source: 2008 Republican debate at Reagan Library in Simi Valley Jan 30, 2008

Cut off all foreign aid to Israel & to Arabs
Q: Would you cut off all foreign aid to Israel?

A: Absolutely. But remember, the Arabs would get cut off, too, and the Arabs get three times as much aid altogether than Israel. But why make Israel so dependent? Why do they give up their sovereignty? They can't defend their borders without coming to us. If they want a peace treaty, they have to ask us permission. We interfere when the Arab League makes overtures to them. So I would say that we've made them second class citizens.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Dec 23, 2007

Get out of South Korea and let two Koreas unify
Q: Under President Paul, if North Korea invaded South Korea, would we respond?

A: Why should we unless the Congress declared war? I mean, why are we there? In South Korea, they're begging and pleading to unify their country, and we get in their way. They want to build bridges and go back and forth. Vietnam, we left under the worst of circumstances. The country is unified. They have become Westernized. We trade with them. Their president comes here. And Korea, we stayed there and look at the mess. I mean, the problem still exists, and it's drained trillion dollars over these last 50 years. We can't afford it anymore. We're going bankrupt. All empires end because the countries go bankrupt, and the currency crashes. That's what happening. And we need to come out of this sensibly rather than waiting for a financial crisis.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Dec 23, 2007

Bush humble foreign policy was hijacked into nation-building
Q: Do you think there's an ideological struggle that Islamic fascists want to take over the world?

A: Oh, I think some, just like the West is wanting to do that all the time. Look at the way they look at us. I mean, we're in a 130 countries. We have 700 bases. How do you think they proposed that to their people, saying "What does America want to do? Are they over here to be nice to us and teach us how to be good Democrats?"

Q: So you see a moral equivalency between the West and Islamic fascism?

A: For some radicals on each side that want to impose our will with force. Not the American people--I'm talking the people who have hijacked our foreign policy, the people who took George Bush's humble foreign policy and turned it into one of nation-building.

Q: The president himself?

A: The president himself has changed the policy. I liked the program he ran on. That's what I defend. It changed at the first meeting of the Cabinet, [when they discussed] when were we going to attack Iraq?
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Dec 23, 2007

US must obey treaties human rights abroad
Q: Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the Senate has ratified?

A: Well, he never has the right to violate any human rights, but because he should obey the constitution, not because of the international treaty. But so I would get to that point but not because of the treaty but because of the Constitution.

Q: Well, but the Constitution only has force on US soil, right, so the question is what happens when he is operating overseas? Do these other instruments bind him if the Senate has ratified them?

A: If he's overseas and the treaty is in effect and would protect human rights--see I keep thinking well we shouldn't be over there. So if we're there--and I can't see myself being over there--well, okay, the answer would be that he would have to obey the treaty.
Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007

Focus on the Iraq war and foreign policy
We could bring our troops home and become diplomatically credible again around the world. Today we're not. Even our allies resent what we do. We wouldn't have no more preemptive war. We would threaten nobody, not Iran. It is proven Iraq didn't have the nuclear weapon, had nothing to do with 9/11. The Iranians have no nuclear weapon, according to our CIA. There's no need for us to threaten the Iranians. We could immediately turn the Navy around & bring them home. This would be a major step toward peace.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Republican Debate Dec 12, 2007

Stop interfering with Latin America; talk & trade instead
Q: Venezuela rejected changes to the constitution, but President Hugo Chavez has insisted that he's going to propose them again. Many consider him a threat to democracy in the region. How would you deal with Chavez?

A: Well, he's not the easiest person to deal with, but we should deal with everybody around the world the same way: with friendship and opportunity to talk and try to trade with people. We talked to Stalin, we talked to Khrushchev, we've talked to Mao, and we've talked to the world, & we get along with people. Actually, I believe we're at a time where we even ought to talk to Cuba and trade and travel to Cuba. We have a problem in South America and Central America: because we've been involved in their internal affairs for so long. We have been meddling in their business. We create the Chavezes of the world, we create the Castros of the world by interfering and creating chaos in their countries, and they respond by throwing out their leader.
Source: 2007 Republican primary debate on Univision Dec 9, 2007

Empires usually end by spending too much to maintain empire
I would say that since 70% of the American people want out of the Iraq war, and they are tired of it, the Republicans better pick somebody who is opposed to the war or have a new foreign policy, or they can't win.

I think the whole sentiment [toward the Iraq war] is shifting. The people are sick and tired of the war. We can't even afford it. We can't even fight the war without borrowing the money from the Chinese. So it doesn't add up. It really doesn't matter whether I'm right or wrong. The war is going to end because we are going to have such a political and financial havoc here with the devaluation of our dollar because we just can't keep affording.

This is usually how empires end, by spending too much money maintaining their empires. We are in 130 countries. We have 700 bases around the world. And it's going to come to an end. I want it to come to an end more gracefully and peacefully, follow the Constitution and follow more sensible foreign policy.
Source: CNN Late Edition: 2007 presidential series with Wolf Blitzer Dec 2, 2007

Stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy
Q: What are the top three federal programs you would reduce in size in order to decrease spending?

A: I would like to change Washington, and we could by cutting three programs, such as the Department of Education-- Ronald Reagan used to talk about that--Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security is the biggest bureaucracy we ever had. And besides, what we can do is we can have a stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy.
Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida Nov 28, 2007

No constitutional or moral authority for US action in Darfur
Q: Does the US have a role to play in ending the genocide in Darfur?

PAUL: The US government has no authority. There's no constitutional authority. There's no moral authority. There's plenty of moral authority and responsibility for individuals to participate. But every time we get involved, no matter where, for good intentions, believe me, we're getting involved in a civil war. Even when you send food, it ends up in the hands of the military and they use it as weapons. So it's not well-intended. We should direct our attention only to national security and not get involved for these feel-good reasons. And this is the main reason why I think we ought to just come home from every place in the world and bring our troops home from Iraq.

BROWNBACK: I couldn't disagree more with that last answer. We are the greatest nation on the face of the Earth, and we are ones that can stand up. We had declared years ago in Rwanda: Never again. And what is happening? It is happening again.
Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007

Don't pressure Israel to give up land for promise of peace
Q: Past presidents have expected Israel to give up land, not for peace but for the promise of peace. With this mindset, Pres. Bush introduced the "roadmap" in 2003, yet 60 terrorist acts are attempted & 300 rockets fall every month in Israel. Will you stand behind Israel to not give up land for unfulfilled promises of peace, even in the face of opposition of European & Arab countries?

    * HUCKABEE: Yes.
    * TANCREDO: Yes.
    * COX: Yes.
    * BROWNBACK:Yes.
    * PAUL:Yes.
    * HUNTER:Yes.
    * KEYES: Yes.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Not US role to monitor eradication of legal slavery in Sudan
Q: I was made a slave during the government of Sudan's war against black Christians of southern Sudan. I am a slave no longer, but today want to free tens of thousands of my brothers and sisters who remain in chattel slavery in Sudan. Would you today endorse the creation of a commission to monitor the eradication of slavery in Sudan, where the slavery of a man is legal?

    * HUCKABEE: Yes.
    * TANCREDO: Yes.
    * COX: Yes.
    * BROWNBACK: Yes.
    * PAUL: No.
    * HUNTER: Yes.
    * KEYES: Yes.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Avoid ratifying Law of the Sea Treaty
Q: Pres. Reagan rejected the Law of the Sea Treaty, because it gives International Seabed Authority dictatorial power to regulate all oceans and the riches at the bottom of the oceans, plus the power the levy international taxes, and it would make the US subject to the decisions of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Would you urge the Senate not to ratify this treaty?

    * HUCKABEE: Yes.
    * TANCREDO: Yes.
    * COX: Yes.
    * BROWNBACK: Yes.
    * PAUL: Yes.
    * HUNTER: Yes.
    * KEYES: Yes.

Source: [Xref Keyes] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Right to spread our values, but wrong to spread by force
Q: Pres. Bush said in his second inaugural address, "It is the policy of the US to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture." Has Pres. Bush's policy been a success?

A: Our responsibility is to spread democracy here, make sure that we have it. This is a philosophic and foreign policy problem, because what the president was saying was just a continuation of Woodrow Wilson's "making the world safe for democracy." There's nothing wrong with spreading our values around the world, but it is wrong to spread it by force. We should spread it by setting an example and going and doing a good job here. Threatening Pakistan and threatening Iran makes no sense whatsoever. I supported going after Al Qaida into Afghanistan--but, lo & behold, the neocons took over. They forgot about Bin Laden. And what they did, they went into nation-building, not only in Afghanistan, they went unjustifiably over into Iraq. And that's why we're in this mess today.
Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007

Interventionism perpetuated by politician's false patriotism
There are several reasons that nations cling to a policy of foreign entanglements. Political power is an aphrodisiac for most politicians, and too many of those with power develop grandiose dreams of world conquest. In the US, private financial interests also influence our policies and relationships in world affairs.

Another reason people succumb to dangerous policies of war and conquest relates to the false sense of patriotism promoted by our politicians.

Thus the missionary zeal to spread American goodness, always promoted as altruism by neoconservatives, gains public support. Military adventurism seems justified to many, especially before the costs, the failures, and the deaths are widely recognized.
Source: A Foreign Policy of Freedom, by Ron Paul, p.361 Jun 15, 2007

No foreign aid; no treaties that commit US to future wars
A policy of strategic independence is far better than international entanglements. Those who advocate the traditional policy of nonintervention are ridiculed as isolationists by the authoritarians who want the US to decide all disputes. Yet it's their interventionist policies, especially in the last six years, that have isolated us, reduced our allies, and increased our enemies.

A republic that remains neutral in foreign affairs would not dispense foreign aid. It would seek diplomatic solutions to international disputes. No direct subsidies would be given to other governments, politicians, or factions involved in internal disputes abroad, and there would be no subsidized loans. There would be no sanctions or blockades placed on other countries, unless war was declared. There would be no threats to have our way in foreign affairs. There would be no treaties promising to commit later generations to war. There would be no CIA coups to overthrow governments.
Source: A Foreign Policy of Freedom, by Ron Paul, p.369 Jun 15, 2007

Our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests
You can't discuss energy without discussing our foreign policy. Why do we go to the Middle East? You know that oil is very important about the Middle East and why we're there. Why did our government help overthrow Mossadeq in 1953? It had to do with oil. So our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests. The profits--that's not the problem. It's the problem that we succumb to the temptation to protect oil interests by literally going out and fighting wars over oil.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007

Bush mistake: ran on humble foreign policy; now runs empire
Q: What has been President Bush's biggest mistake since taking office?

A: The president ran on a program of a humble foreign policy, no nation-building, and no policing of the world. And he changed his tune, and now we are fighting a war, and our foreign operations around the world to maintain our empire is now approaching $1 trillion a year. That's where the money's going, and that's where it has to be cut so we can take care of education and medical cares that are needed here in this country.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007

Non-intervention is traditional American & Republican policy
We should have a foreign policy of non-intervention, the traditional American foreign policy and the Republican foreign policy. Throughout the 20th century, the Republican Party benefited from a non-interventionist foreign policy. How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don't police the world. That's conservative, it's Republican, it's pro-American--it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007

Avoid double standard--follow international law
On one hand, we pretend to abide by the UN and international law, such as when Congress cited the UN in its resolution authorizing the president to initiate war with Iraq. On the other hand, we feel free to completely ignore the terms of treaties--and even unilaterally demand a change in the terms of treaties--without hesitation. This leads to an increasing perception around the world that we are no longer an honest broker. Is this the message we want to send at this critical time?

Some may argue that it does not matter whether the US operates under double standards. WE are the lone super-power and can do as we wish, they argue. But this is a problem of the rule of law. Are we a nation that respects the rule of law? What example does it set for the rest of the world when we change the rules of the game whenever we see fit. Won't this come back to haunt us?
Source: House speech, in Foreign Policy of Freedom, p.360 Jun 20, 2006

No nation-building; no world policeman; no pre-emptive war
Q: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine, or would you change it?

A: I certainly agreed with his foreign policy that he ran on and that we, as Republicans, won in year 2000. You know, the humble foreign policy, no nation building, don't be the policeman of the world. Of course, the excuse is that 9/11 changed everything. But the Bush doctrine of preemptive war is not a minor change; this is huge. This is the first time we, as a nation, accept as our policy that we start the wars. I don't understand this And that all options are on the table to go after Iran? This is not necessary. These are Third World nations. They're not capable. But I think it's the misunderstanding or the disagreements that we've had in this debate along the campaign trail is the nature of the threat. I'm as concerned about the nature of the threat of terrorism as anybody, if not more so. But they don't attack us because we're free and prosperous.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Republican primary debate Jan 5, 2006

UN membership leads to impractical military conflicts
I have argued for years against membership in the UN because it compromises our sovereignty. The US has always been expected to pay an unfair percentage of UN expenses. I content that membership in the UN has led to impractical military conflicts that were highly costly in both lives and dollars, and that were rarely resolved.

Over 58 years in Korea have seen 33,000 lives lost, 100,000 casualties, and over a trillion dollars spent. Korea is the most outrageous example of our fighting a UN war without declaration from Congress. And where are we today? On the verge of a nuclear confrontation with a North Korean regime nearly out of control.
Source: House speech, in Foreign Policy of Freedom, p.248-249 Feb 26, 2003

Neutrality on Israel-Palestine; start by defunding both
It is sort of a contest: should we be pro-Israel or pro-Arab, or anti-Israel or Anti-Arab, and how are we perceived doing this? It is pretty important.

But I think there is a third option that we often forget. Why can we not be pro-American? What is in the best interests of the US?

I believe that it is in the best interests of the United States not to get into a fight, a fight that we do not have the wisdom to figure out. I would like to have neutrality. That has been the tradition for America, at least a century ago, to be friends with everybody, trade with everybody, and be neutral unless someone declares war against us.

The perceptions are yes, we have solidarity with Israel. What is the opposite of solidarity? It is hostility. So if we have solidarity with Israel, then we have hostility to the Palestinians.

I have a proposal. We should start by defunding both sides. I think we can contribute by being more neutral.
Source: House speech, in Foreign Policy of Freedom, p.177-178 Dec 15, 2001

Policy of non-intervention, neutrality, & independence
Throughout the 20th century, the US has steadily drifted from the traditional policy of nonintervention, neutrality, and independence to one of interventionism in the internal affairs of other nations, covert foreign activity, and broad international commitments.

This dramatic shift in policy, one of the major US blunders of this century, is responsible for all of our overseas military conflicts of the past eight decades, which have resulted in more than 650,000 Americans killed and 1,130,000 Americans wounded. The last two major conflicts, Korea and Vietnam, were fought without a formal declaration of war. In modern language, they were "police actions." Since war was not declared, there was no commitment to win. Clearly the efforts proved futile, serving only to tear at the seams of American society.

Policy shifts have since occurred, but reassessment of the overall foreign intervention policy has not taken place. Reassessment must occur if the senseless killing is to be stopped.
Source: Freedom Under Siege, by Ron Paul, p. 41 Dec 31, 1987

$140B to protect Europe creates competitive disadvantage
The ironies of our foreign policy are endless. We have troops in over 120 countries of the world and support, financially and militarily, both sides of most of the current military conflicts.

Our politicians' enthusiasm for foreign aid is not shared by a majority of the American people, nor does it confirm to the Constitution.

We have 340,000 troops in Europe and over 200,000 elsewhere around the world. It costs $140 billion a year to protect Europe and $50 billion a year to defend Japan. It costs approximately $1000 to maintain each man per day overseas. This assistance permits a competitive edge for our allies, who are well ahead of us technologically, and contributes to our trade deficit. Our only response has been to promote protectionism, making the problem worse. Overall foreign policy has never been seriously considered as the basic flaw, like it someday must.
Source: Freedom Under Siege, by Ron Paul, p. 53-54 Dec 31, 1987

Foreign aid helps dictators, not the people of aided country
Officially, getting openly involved in the internal affairs of other nations is always at the host country's request. Those interfering claim they do so by popular support, but the people are never consulted. Our foreign aid goes either to fascist or socialist nations, benefiting the rulers by solidifying their power and impeding the development of a free society and a free-market economy.

The outcome of even the best-motivated assistance is usually the opposite of that which was intended. When economic assistance is sent to other nations with the intention of helping the poor, the poor receive a small fraction of what is sent. But the worst part of all this is that the assistance perpetuates the entire system that causes the impoverishment in the first place and makes it more difficult than ever for the people of that country to achieve more liberty.
Source: Freedom Under Siege, by Ron Paul, p. 56 Dec 31, 1987

Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China.
To authorize measures to deter arms transfers by foreign countries to the People's Republic of China, A YES vote would grant the President the ability to place sanctions on any individual or country that violates the arms embargo, including:

    * Denial of participation in cooperative research and development
    * Prohibition of ownership and control of any business registered as a manufacturer or exporter of defense articles or services
    * Removal of all licenses relative to dual-use goods or technology
    * Prohibition of participation of any foreign military sales

Reference: East Asia Security Act; Bill HR 3100 ; vote number 2005-374 on Jul 14, 2005

Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding.
To reform the United Nations, by limiting the US contribution to the UN by up to one-half by the year 2007, if the following reforms are not made:

    * Requires the creation of an Independent Oversight Board with the authority to evaluate all operations of the UN
    * Instructs the UN to implement procedures to protect whistle-blowers, individuals who reveal wrongdoings within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority
    * Obliges the creation of a uniform code of conduct for all UN officials
    * Requires the shifting of the funding mechanisms of certain organizational programs from the regular assessed UN budget to voluntarily funded programs
    * Compels the US President to influence the Secretary General of the UN to waive diplomatic immunity for UN officials under investigation or charged with serious criminal offences
    * Creates a certification of UN cooperation to provide documentary evidence to member states investigating the Oil-for-Food program

Reference: United Nations Reform Act; Bill HR 2745 ; vote number 2005-282 on Jun 17, 2005

Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released.
Stop enforcing travel restrictions on US citizens to Cuba, only after the president has certified that Cuba has released all political prisoners, and extradited all individuals sought by the US on charges of air piracy, drug trafficking and murder.
Bill HR 2590 ; vote number 2001-270 on Jul 25, 2001

Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored.
Vote to adopt an amendment that would require that the United States be restored to its seat on the UN Human Rights Commission before the payment of $244 million in funds already designated to pay UN back dues.
Reference: Amendment sponsored by Hyde, R-IL; Bill HR 1646 ; vote number 2001-107 on May 10, 2001

Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction.
Vote on an amendment that would transfer $156 million from foreign military financing to the Highly Indebted Poor Countries [HIPC] Trust Fund. The HIPC Trust fund is designed to help debtor countries pay off the money they owe to multilateral agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
Reference: Amendment sponsored by Waters, D-CA; Bill HR 4811 ; vote number 2000-397 on Jul 13, 2000

Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.
Vote to give permanent Normal Trade Relations [NTR] status to China. Currently, NTR status for China is debated and voted on annually. The measure contains provisions designed to protect the United States from Chinese import surges and the administration would have to report annually on China's compliance with the trade agreement. The bill establishes a commission to monitor human rights, labor standards and religious freedom in China.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Archer, R-TX; Bill HR 4444 ; vote number 2000-228 on May 24, 2000

Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations.
Vote on a bill to provide $15.2 billion for foreign operations in FY 2000. Among other provisions, the bill would provide $1.82 billion over three years for implementation of the Wye River peace accord in the Middle East. In addition, the measure would provide $123 million in multilateral debt relief and would contribute $25 million to the United National Population Fund.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Callahan, R-AL; Bill HR 3196 ; vote number 1999-572 on Nov 5, 1999

Allow Americans to travel to Cuba.
Paul co-sponsored allowing Americans to travel to Cuba

OnTheIssues.org explanation: The US government has forbidden US citizens from traveling to Cuba since the 1960s. Try booking a trip from Mexico City to Havana on travelocity.com (or any travel website) and it says, "Due to a U.S. government travel restriction we are unable to book this reservation." You can, however, purchase that same ticket while in Mexico City, or anywhere else in the world. Sanford's bill attempts to undo this long-standing situation.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY:

    * Prohibits the President from regulating or prohibiting, directly or indirectly, travel to or from Cuba by US citizens, or any of specified transactions incident to such travel.
    * Declares that this prohibition does not authorize the importation into the US of any goods for personal consumption acquired in Cuba; &
    * The restrictions on the President's authority do not apply in a case in which the US is at war with Cuba.

EXCERPTS FROM BILL:

    * FREEDOM OF TRAVEL FOR U.S. CITIZENS AND LEGAL RESIDENTS: The President shall not regulate or prohibit travel to or from Cuba by US citizens or legal residents.
    * TRANSACTIONS INCIDENT TO TRAVEL: The President shall not regulate any transactions ordinarily incident to travel to or from Cuba, including the importation into Cuba or the US of accompanied baggage; the payment of living expenses; or facilitation of travel to, from, or within Cuba.
    * EXCEPTION: The restrictions on authority contained in section 1 do not apply in a case in which the US is at war with Cuba, armed hostilities between the two countries are in progress, or there is imminent danger to the public health or the physical safety of United States travelers.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME: Referred to the House Committee on the Western Hemisphere; never called for a House vote.
Source: Cuba travel bill (H.R.4471) 00-HR4471 on May 16, 2000

Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful .
Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:

    * As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000. WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
    * WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
    * WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
    * WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;

   1. BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles: The United States should not be answerable to any governing body outside the United States for its trade policy.
   2. Foreign aid is often more harmful than helpful and should be curtailed.
   3. US military personnel should always be under US command.

Source: Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement 00-RLC12 on Dec 8, 2000

Ban foreign aid to oil-producers who restrict production.
Paul co-sponsored an amendment to the International Financial Institutions Act:

Title: To direct the International Monetary Fund to oppose any new loan to any country that is acting to restrict oil production to the detriment of the United States economy, except in emergency circumstances.

Summary: Amends the International Financial Institutions Act to direct the U.S. Executive Director at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to use the U.S. voice, vote, and influence to oppose any new IMF loan to any country which the Secretary of Energy determines is a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and is acting to restrict oil production to the detriment of the U.S. economy, or is acting in concert with OPEC to do so, unless the provision of the loan is necessary to address a systemic risk to the international financial system.
Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HR1688 on May 2, 2001

Sponsored bill invalidating International Criminal Court.
Paul sponsored that International Criminal Court decisions not valid for US

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the establishment or operation of the International Criminal Court. Declares that any action taken by or on behalf of the Court: (1) against any member of the US armed forces shall be considered an act of aggression against the US; or (2) against any US citizen or national shall be considered an offense against the law of nations.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Rep. PAUL: This bill prohibits funds made available by the US Government from being used for the establishment or operation of the International Criminal Court. Perhaps the most significant part of the bill makes clear that any action taken by or on behalf of the Court against members of the US Armed Forces shall be considered an act of aggression against the US.

In May 2002, Pres. Bush took the commendable step of repudiating the Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Court is an illegitimate body even by the UN's own standards. The Statute of the International Criminal Court was enacted by the UN General Assembly, whereas according to the UN Charter, the authority to create such a body lies only in the UN Security Council.

The International Criminal Court puts US citizens in jeopardy of unlawful and unconstitutional criminal prosecution. The Court does not provide many of the Constitutional protections guaranteed every American citizen, including the right to trial by jury, the right to face your accuser, and the presumption of innocence, and the protection against double jeopardy.

Members of the US Armed Forces are particularly at risk for politically motivated arrests, prosecutions, fines, and imprisonment for acts engaged in for the protection of the US. I hope all members of this body will join me in opposing this illegitimate and illegal court.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to House Committee on International Relations; never came to a vote.
Source: American Servicemember & Civilian Protection Act (H.R.1154) 03-HR1154 on Mar 6, 2003

Sponsored bill to end the Cuban embargo.
Paul sponsored ending the Cuban embargo

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Rep. PAUL: This bill lifts the harmful and counterproductive US embargo on Cuba. The sanctions have failed to remove Castro from power, and other nations are unwilling to respect the embargo.

I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don't work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, from Cuba to China to Iraq, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti-American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders. While sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies.

Second, sanctions simply hurt American industries, particularly agriculture. Every market we close to our nation's farmers is a market exploited by foreign farmers. China, Russia, North Korea, and Cuba all represent huge markets for our farm products, yet many in Congress favor trade restrictions that prevent our farmers from selling to the billions of people in these countries.

I certainly understand the emotional feelings many Americans have toward nations such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Cuba. Yet we must not let our emotions overwhelm our judgment in foreign policy matters, because ultimately human lives are at stake. Economic common sense, self-interested foreign policy goals, and humanitarian ideals all point to the same conclusion: Congress should work to end economic sanctions against all nations immediately.

The legislation I introduce today is representative of true free trade in that while it opens trade, it prohibits the US taxpayer from being compelled to subsidize the US government, the Cuban government or individuals or entities that choose to trade with Cuban citizens.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to House Committee on Immigration & Border Security; never came to a vote.
Source: Cuban Embargo bill (H.R.1698) 03-HR1698 on Apr 9, 2003

Sponsored resolution to withdraw from UNESCO.
Paul sponsored withdrawing from UNESCO

EXCERPTS OF RESOLUTION:

    * Whereas President Ronald Reagan, citing gross financial mismanagement, anti-American bias, and anti-freedom policies, withdrew the US from membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1984;
    * Whereas the US rejoined UNESCO in 2003;
    * Whereas the US has only a single vote in UNESCO despite being assessed 25% of the UNESCO budget;
    * Whereas UNESCO membership may force unconstitutional restraints on US freedom of the press;
    * Whereas UNESCO effectively bypasses congressional authority to manage Federal lands by establishing management policies;
    * Whereas UNESCO membership would undermine US sovereignty by forcing US adherence to the UN global policy on bioethics; and
    * Whereas UNESCO seeks to levy an unconstitutional 'global tax' on Internet use on US citizens

   1. Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives, That it is the sense of Congress that--the United States should formally withdraw from UNESCO; and
   2. any funds appropriated towards the US contribution to UNESCO, but not yet transferred to UNESCO, should be returned to the Treasury.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to House Committee on International Relations; never came to a vote.
Source: Resolution on UNESCO (H.CON.RES.443) 04-HCR443 on Jun 3, 2004

 
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: tombogan03884 on July 13, 2008, 06:57:54 PM
I already posted about how Jeffersonian democracy didn't even work for Jefferson, but I have one question, if WE are not the worlds policeman then who CAN or would do the job ? Russia ? China ? I'm sure THEY would be impartial.
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: twyacht on July 13, 2008, 08:23:38 PM
I already posted about how Jeffersonian democracy didn't even work for Jefferson, but I have one question, if WE are not the worlds policeman then who CAN or would do the job ? Russia ? China ? I'm sure THEY would be impartial.

(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/twyacht/n522306244_197290_3718.jpg)

+1
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: brosometal on July 13, 2008, 09:14:01 PM
Ad Hominem!  Ad Hominem!
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: tombogan03884 on July 13, 2008, 11:18:17 PM
New avatar Brosometal ?  ;D
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: Ron J on July 14, 2008, 12:13:50 AM
The concept of not being “the world’s policeman” and the theory of "isolationism" works about as well as theories on gun control, communism and time travel.  There are some very bad people out there that want you to bow to east and pray five times a day.  If someone doesn’t have the sand to stop their goat loving asses, they will be in your zip code with a raging hard-on to subjugate you to their religion and will. 

Tell me how isolationism works with radical Islam?  Who’s going to stop them?  I am trying to think of when in history did an isolationist position ever work for anyone?

Paul and Barr are cheese eating surrender monkeys. 
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: JohnJacobH on July 14, 2008, 08:28:22 AM
The concept of not being “the world’s policeman” and the theory of "isolationism" works about as well as theories on gun control, communism and time travel.  There are some very bad people out there that want you to bow to east and pray five times a day.  If someone doesn’t have the sand to stop their goat loving asses, they will be in your zip code with a raging hard-on to subjugate you to their religion and will. 

Tell me how isolationism works with radical Islam?  Who’s going to stop them?  I am trying to think of when in history did an isolationist position ever work for anyone?

Paul and Barr are cheese eating surrender monkeys. 


Examine carefully what has happened in the space of just a few short posts.

The discussion has shifted from what Ron Paul ( A Republican elected many times over) ACTUALLY said: CONGRESS SHALL DECLARE WAR, The American TAXPAYER IS NOT A BOTTOMLESS PIT OF MONEY FOR the No Boondoggle left behind policies of the so-called left and right

to Ron Paul =Isolationist and is therefore bad, bad, bad.

It must be nice to believe the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth and know the full faith and credit of the Church will behead anyone who suggests otherwise.

This is tyranny and slavery by another name and it stinks as much.

You boys want to have an actual discussion about anything, you know where I am.

Best regards,
Title: Re: Something Big Is Going On.
Post by: Ron J on July 14, 2008, 10:24:01 AM
While we are throwing inane clichés about, let’s call a spade a spade.  Hell, quote Shakespeare on roses if you must.   
From what I have read of Ron Paul, he’s not falling back on the Constitution any more than he is ignoring the War Powers Act.  He doesn’t want to be the world’s cop and doesn’t think we should be fighting in Iraq.  This is isolationism and this is a bad thing. 

That’s the disagreement.  I tend to believe that we need to be looking five to ten years ahead in this war against radical Islam and we need a forward base … like England was in WW2 … in the middle east to protect our interests.  As well, we need to take the fight to the Islamo-nuts so they don’t bring it to our streets.
 
Paul, left leaning liberals and Libertarians disagree.   They want to pull out and wait for fortress America to be attacked again. 

Paul lives in the flat world of the naïve.