The New Ron Paul Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ya know how LOTS of people keep talking about TSHTF......well if we can't get Ron Paul elected, I'm afraid TSHTF sooner rather than later.......or maybe thats what a lot of people want.
Ron Paul TRUELY is America's last hope......

Just my .02 cents
 
Sort of like the "war on drugs." People are smoking weed anyway, so why spend billions trying to stop them?

It's about time we let the world go about it's business and start worrying about America first. Our dollar is bordering on worthless. Our national debut is so high that the government has to keep printing more money to keep interest rates down to keep the country from defaulting ... "stealth" inflation erodes our purchasing power ... the list goes on. But we are saving the world by keeping nukes out of Iran's hands. Pakistan already has them - so the Nuke cat is already out of the bag in the Muslim world anyway.

Flame me if you must - but seriously - what has all the meddling we've done since World War II really gained us? All this preemptive crap prevents nothing and costs a fortune.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who will really try and change the way we do things in America. And he likes guns, too - so that's a plus.



VERY WELL SAID!!!!!.........No flaming here...only agrreing 100% with what you said......


GC
 
mmike87 said:
And he likes guns, too
That alone is enough reason for me to vote for him. I find his stance on the other issues to be the plus.

I've never understood why so many people on this forum are opposed to Ron Paul since he is likely the most pro-gun politician in Washington.
 
If you would like to influence a popular opinion in a country do you:

a. Become trading partners with the country and introduce them to the finer things in life or

b. Call a group of them evil and then attack a member of that group

RP says, be nice until you actually got a reason not to.

DW
 
Digital Warrior, I think we have influenced popular opinion in Iraq.

And how's Venezuela, our trading partner, working out?

To answer an earlier question:

The reason some people here don't support Ron Paul is that they see his foreign policy as naive, dangerously optimistic, and based on false truisms.

Personally, I give Paul more credit than I do, say, some of his supporters like Digital Warrior above. I'd say those things about his post, but not about Ron Paul's whole way of thinking, which I believe runs deeper.

However, I'm not thoroughly convinced that, "when you see some major problems, simply do the exact opposite things and they'll go away!" works, either. That's his foreign policy in a nutshell, IMO.

That said, I've donated a little to Paul, and nobody else. Go figure. I guess I like guns and independent-minded people in office.
 
Maybe he doesn't want to be a part of the next idiotic stampede of sheep to the next idiotic war on the neo-con menu. A lot of people NOW regret going down that road with Iraq--but Paul doesn't have to.
 
Meddling in the world's affairs has done nothing but cost us thousands of lives (even well outside of Iraq), is bankrupting the nation, and has yet to ever produce any tagnigble benefit for us.


Would that include our involvement in WW2 and the Cold War?
 
However, I'm not thoroughly convinced that, "when you see some major problems, simply do the exact opposite things and they'll go away!" works, either. That's his foreign policy in a nutshell, IMO.

Actually, it's interesting that you say "some major problems" and not "our major problems".

I used to side with the pro-war crowd, because I read a good bit and some intelligent people made some very convincing high-brow arguments in favor of it.

I don't side with them any more. The reason is simple: if we're going to go shoot people, I think any explanation in excess of one sentence doesn't work.

"They blew up our buildings" worked for a while, until we stopped and scratched our heads and had to think about and rationalize why we were in Afghanistan - and that one sentence didn't really work.

So we got "They have WMD's" - and along with it came a new front to the war. But as we've seen, that one line doesn't add up, either.

"Saddam killed his own people" - well, that might work, except that means our troops need to make a couple hundred stops on the way home - to places like CHINA - if that's our casus belli now.

WWII was the last real war we fought - and we had one sentence to motivate us: "They bombed us". That was what woke the sleeping giant and filled him with terrible resolve - not a multi-page argument involving the finer points of centuries old tribal conflicts.

Call it simplistic policy, but I now think it's time to put the giant back to sleep. Not kill him, just let him sleep. 62 years of constant conflict has eroded his terrible resolve. It now only comes in small doses, and wasting them chasing paper tigers means he'll never be able to pull off what he did back then.

And if he can't pull off what he did back then anymore, then he can be beaten.
 
Maybe he doesn't want to be a part of the next idiotic stampede of sheep to the next idiotic war on the neo-con menu.

LOL

True or not, you could at least write your own material.:p

A lot of people NOW regret going down that road with Iraq--but Paul doesn't have to.

If that's how he thinks, then he isn't fit to be President. I doubt he does, because I honestly think he cares about the United States of America and its principles, than scoring personal points.

If what you want is people who want to score personal points at the expense of the nation and regardless of the consequences to it, hell, vote for one of the several Democrats running on that platform.

We're already IN Iraq, one way or another. Debating about whether or not to go to Iraq is the province of academics, not leaders, since we're already there, and leaders don't get to operate in a fantasy world and succeed.

Ron Paul seems to be a principled grownup. His supporters do much to undermine that impression, however.
 
Actually, it's interesting that you say "some major problems" and not "our major problems".

It actually means nothing.

I was referring to the sum total of Paul's foreign policy platform.

It includes, among other things, withdrawing from all "free trade" agreements because of problems with those agreements. He doesn't appear to acknowledge that they actually DO bring about the freer trade libertarians support, and that we might be better off trying to fix them than running from them.

The platform also includes military non-involvement. This means to me, "War is expensive. War costs lives. War sucks. Therefore, we will withdraw our troops within our borders and wait for the Big One to come, like we did when we "stayed out of it" in 1935, 1936, 1938 and 1940, just to make sure that Hirohito and Hitler were as powerful as possible before we sent our men to die overseas, and also to necessitate our Faustian bargain with Stalin."

I was not referring to Iraq specifically. That conversation is a waste of time, either way.

I was referring to Ron Paul's approach to foreign policy "problems" in general, as reflected in his platform, which appears to me to be "do exactly the opposite of what we have done, and we'll be fine!"

But they all are OUR problems, you're right. And if Ron Paul is elected, and messes up, the resulting problems will be ours, just like Bush's, Clinton's, or any of their predecessors' problems.

And like I said, I still donated to his campaign, for reasons of my own.
 
RP says, be nice until you actually got a reason not to.
I guess Iran sponsoring, training, harboring and assisting terrorist groups against our troops in Iraq isn't reason enough for Ron Paul to not be nice and not invite them over for tea. :rolleyes:

That doesn't include American Embassy kidnappings in Iran or the 1996 truck bombing of Khobar Towers, a U.S. military residence in Saudi Arabia, which killed nineteen U.S. servicemen.

A list of the Iranian Terrorist training camps:

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5956

1) Imam Ali Training Garrison, Tajrish Square, Tehran,
2) Bahonar Garrison, Chalous Street, close to the dam of Karaj,
3) Qom’s Ali-Abad Garrison, Tehran-Qom highway,
4) Mostafa Khomeini Garrison, Eshrat-Abad district, Tehran,
5) Crate Camp Garrison, 40 kilometres from the Ahwaz-Mahshar highway,
6) Fateh Qani-Hosseini Garrison, between Tehran and Qom
7) Qayour Asli Garrison, 30 kilometres from Ahwaz-Khorramshahr highway,
8) Abouzar Garrison, Qaleh-Shahin district, Ahwaz, Khuzestan province
9) Hezbollah Garrison, Varamin, east of Tehran
10) Eezeh Training Garrison
11) Amir-ol-Momenin Garrison, Ban-Roushan, Ilam province
12) Kothar Training Garrison, Dezful Street, Shoushtar, Khuzestan province
13) Imam Sadeq Garrison, Qom
14) Lavizan Training Centre, north-east Tehran
15) Abyek Training Centre, west of Tehran
16) Dervish Training Centre, 18 kilometres from the Ahwaz-Mahshar highway,
17) Qazanchi Training Centre, Ravansar-Kermanshah-Kamyaran tri-junction,
18) Beit-ol-Moqaddas University, Qom
19) Navab Safavi School, Ahwaz
20) Nahavand Training Centre, 45 kilometres from Nahavand, western Iran

"The former IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps) officer said the camps and the training centres were under the control of the IRGC’s elite Qods Force, the extra-territorial arm of the Revolutionary Guards."

"“The Qods Force has an extensive network that uses the facilities of Iranian embassies or cultural and economic missions or a number of religious institutions such as the Islamic Communications and Culture Organisation to recruit radical Islamists in Muslim countries or among the Muslims living in the West. After going through preliminary training and security checks in those countries, the recruits are then sent to Iran via third countries and end up in one of the Qods Force training camps”, the officer said."

"A special branch inside Iran’s Foreign Ministry is responsible for assisting the Qods Force in bringing in foreign recruits. The recruits first travel to third countries where they are given new passports by Iranian agents to facilitate their entry into Iran. Upon finishing their training course, the new agents leave Iran for third countries from where they use their genuine passports to return to their countries of origin or where missions are planned."

"Iraq followed by the Palestinian territories have become the focal point of the Qods Force’s activities. Many of the foreign recruits in these camps now come from these two areas, but others come from a wide range of countries, including the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, North Africa and south-east Asia”, he said. “In most camps, the Sunnis outnumber the Shiites”."

"“The scale and breadth of Qods Force operations in Iraq are far beyond what we did even during the war with Saddam”, the officer said, referring to the IRGC’s extensive activities in Iraq during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. “Vast areas of Iraq are under the virtual control of the Qods Force through its Iraqi surrogates. It uses a vast array of charities, companies and other fronts to conduct its activities across Iraq”.

“We would send our officers into Iraq to operate for months under the cover of a construction company”, he said. “Kawthar Company operated in Najaf last year to carry out construction work in the area around Imam Ali Shrine, but it was in fact a front company for the Qods Force. Qods officers, disguised as company employees, established contacts with Iraqi operatives and organised underground cells in southern Iraq”.

The officer said Qods Force officers also used the Iranian Red Crescent and the state-run television and radio corporation as fronts for their operations in Iraq."


budney
I'm an uncompromising supporter of Israel
ROFLMAO

but the evidence does seem to indicate that Ahmedinejad's remarks were mis-translated. He was clearly saying that Israel would eventually go away, not that he intended to be the one to do the honors.

Let's read what he said.........The evidence speaks for itself and is substantiated by his counties actions.

"Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."
 
Marshall,

Very low road. When your Hebrew is better than mine, feel free to impugn my support for Israel.

Let's read what he said.........The evidence speaks for itself and is substantiated by his counties actions.
You mean Iran's recent conventional and nuclear attacks on Israel? :rolleyes:

"Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement..."
You noted the spot where I called that a "mis-translation," right? As in, I am well aware that that's what some people claim Ahmedinejad said. However, there are problems with that--starting with the fact that Persian has no such figure of speech as "wipe off the map." He is no friend of Israel, certainly, but that doesn't justify putting words in his mouth that he never said.

--Len.
 
Wow, Marshall. That's a very convincing, intelligent, multi-page, high-brow argument involving the finer points of centuries old conflicts.

Got something for the plebs?
 
Beatnik, you made no argument at all, just a verbose statement that finally ended with your agreement with Ron Paul, along with a general belief that the US should fold up its tents.

That has always worked for liberals, but it once failed with libertarians. Now I think that too many libertarians have abandoned the ideal of Reason, and resorted to platitudes, truisms, and slogans. Yuck.

Marshall actually demonstrated why he disagrees with you. You've shown nothing here that entitles you to mock him.
 
It includes, among other things, withdrawing from all "free trade" agreements because of problems with those agreements. He doesn't appear to acknowledge that they actually DO bring about the freer trade libertarians support, and that we might be better off trying to fix them than running from them.

Ridiculous implication, Ron Paul is a Republican constitutionalist not a libertarian.

The platform also includes military non-involvement.

Are you uninformed or trying to be misleading? Paul's position on the use of force in response to 9/11 has been posted in the LP forum several times. Here it is again in Paul's own words.

October 15, 2001

Effective and Practical Counter-Terrorism Measures


Over the past month I have introduced several bills designed to address terrorism and make Americans feel more secure. While many counter-terrorism proposals were considered in Congress last week, my belief is that the most effective steps we can take do not infringe upon the civil liberties of American citizens. In fact, I believe only a free society can ever be truly secure. The goal should be to make terrorists feel threatened, not the American people.

Here are some concrete steps Congress can take immediately to make our borders, our cities, and our skies more secure:

Arm Pilots: It is unthinkable to leave pilots defenseless in the cockpit after the events of September 11th. We trust pilots to operate multimillion dollar machines filled with human cargo, yet incredibly we do not trust them with firearms. While airport security certainly can be strengthened, pilots must have the choice to carry weapons as a last line of defense against future hijacking attempts.

Immigration Restrictions: Common sense tells us that we should not currently be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists. Remember, only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. While we should generally welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. My legislation would restrict immigration, including the granting of student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department.

Better intelligence gathering: Burdensome regulations and bureaucratic turf wars hamper the ability of federal law enforcement personnel to share information about terrorists. My proposal would slash regulations and make sure the CIA, FBI, State department, Justice department, and military work together to coordinate anti-terrorism efforts.

Harsher criminal penalties for terrorists: The federal statute of limitations for terrorist offenses should be eliminated, so that suspects can never breathe easy even 10 or 20 years from now. Jail sentences and penalties should be increased, and the death penalty should be possible for many offenses. Terrorist attempts and conspiracies should be treated as harshly as completed acts.

Letters of marque and reprisal: This constitutional tool can be used to give President Bush another weapon in the war on terrorism. Congress can issue letters of marque against terrorists and their property that authorize the President to name private sources who can capture or kill our enemies. This method works in conjunction with our military efforts, creating an incentive for people on the ground close to Bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. Letters of marque are especially suited to the current war on terrorism, which will be fought against individuals who can melt into the civilian population or hide in remote areas. The goal is to avail ourselves of the intelligence of private parties, who may stand a better chance of finding Bin Laden than we do through a conventional military invasion. Letters of marque also may help us avoid a wider war with Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern nations.

End legal preferences for terrorist suspects: Congress should clarify all federal criminal statutes to insure that so-called "extralegal" preferences for criminal terrorist suspects are eliminated. In some past terrorist investigations, federal rules have been interpreted to require law enforcement to show something more than standard probable cause to obtain warrants. Law enforcement officials should never have to demonstrate anything more than standard probable cause when seeking a warrant in the war on terrorism.

Here's the link.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst101501.htm

This means to me, "War is expensive. War costs lives. War sucks. Therefore, we will withdraw our troops within our borders

Funny, it worked really good for the Swiss so far and they aren't even geographically isolated. Maybe it's time for a little less G.I. Joe?
 
The reason some people here don't support Ron Paul is that they see his foreign policy as naive, dangerously optimistic, and based on false truisms.

What false truisms are you talking about?
 
I guess Iran sponsoring, training, harboring and assisting terrorist groups against our troops in Iraq isn't reason enough for Ron Paul to not be nice and not invite them over for tea.

That doesn't include American Embassy kidnappings in Iran or the 1996 truck bombing of Khobar Towers, a U.S. military residence in Saudi Arabia, which killed nineteen U.S. servicemen.

Oh! If we're looking for crimes against America how about we take care of our treasonous federal leadership that operates well outside the boundaries of their Constitutionally limited powers on a daily basis? Not only are they guilty of this high crime, they also armed and trained Al Qaeda which is really just another name for the mujahadeen. And just why are American soldiers getting killed in Saudi Arabia instead of doing their sworn duty of defending the Constitution from its biggest enemies and securing our border from invasion?

Yes, there are more fights to get into out there than you can shake a stick at but most of those foreigners are down right benign compared to the outlaws running our nation into the ground.

As far as tea parties go, see my above post. Paul's position on terrorists is perfectly clear. Some suggestions made on this forum are either very uninformed or deliberately misleading.
 
In regards to Ron Paul voting against condemning Iran, I believe that the reason that he did, is because he doesn't believe that the UN should speak for the US.
 
The last RP thread got locked up due to multiple pages of a few people going back and forth over side-conversations. It was suggested that these side topics be taken to PMs where you can argue to your hearts content.

I started this thread to update other people about RP's campaign, new highlights, and to centralize the weblinks, etc. Questions are good, accusations, insults, and arguing for the sake of arguing are not good (they just make RP supporters have to scroll through multiple pages to find the latest news).

Please take arguements to PMs.

Speaking of Ron Paul, did anyone see the video on YouTube where his supporters protested in Iowa? Pretty impressive...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vJmgMqIJTQ

Also the MSNBC Special:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vJmgMqIJTQ
 
Last edited:
Pretty cool video. I passed at the last minute, but I helped make some of those signs in the video. I recognized people from my RP meetup group there.
GO RON PAUL!
 
budney......budney.......budney....... buhler......buhler.......buhler.....

Are you with us today?

You mean Iran's recent conventional and nuclear attacks on Israel?

budney, do you have trouble understanding the military support, terrorist training, etc; that Iran provides Israels enemies, and ours for that matter? NO, you don't have trouble understanding that, you know that better than I do. You just throw out some BS rhetorical question because the facts can't be argued.

You noted the spot where I called that a "mis-translation," right? As in, I am well aware that that's what some people claim Ahmedinejad said. However, there are problems with that--starting with the fact that Persian has no such figure of speech as "wipe off the map." He is no friend of Israel, certainly, but that doesn't justify putting words in his mouth that he never said.

I'm not convinced he didn't say that, but regardless. Let's use your links wording. Well how bout that, it reads the same to me.

"Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must vanish from the page of time and this was a very wise statement..."We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."

R127
Oh! If we're looking for crimes against America how about we take care of our treasonous federal leadership that operates well outside the boundaries of their Constitutionally limited powers on a daily basis? Not only are they guilty of this high crime, they also armed and trained Al Qaeda which is really just another name for the mujahadeen. And just why are American soldiers getting killed in Saudi Arabia instead of doing their sworn duty of defending the Constitution from its biggest enemies and securing our border from invasion?

You defend a Iran, a State Sponser of Terrorism, a country sending people to kill our troops in Iraq but yet convict the USA? I'm ashamed you even compare us to terrorist. I guess it's because you're so caught up with defending Ron Paul on this issue.

RP says, be nice until you actually got a reason not to.
We have plenty of reason to not be nice. A ton of reason. So much reason, being nice to Iran, is just fricking foolish and retarded thinking. It's been tried, it was proved foolish, retarded and fruitless then.
 
First, I have to say I was offended by the personal attacks.
Digital Warrior, I think we have influenced popular opinion in Iraq.

And how's Venezuela, our trading partner, working out?
Influenced opinion in Iraq? Sure, if you mean to say that we have created the opinion that the US is incapable of winning a war on foreign soil, then sure.
As for Venezuela, with friends like us...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time.

Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere.

It also also deepens doubts about policy in the region being made by appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under President Reagan.

Article continues
One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair.

The Bush administration has tried to distance itself from the coup. It immediately endorsed the new government under businessman Pedro Carmona. But the coup was sent dramatically into reverse after 48 hours.

Now officials at the Organisation of American States and other diplomatic sources, talking to The Observer, assert that the US administration was not only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it to be destined for success.

The visits by Venezuelans plotting a coup, including Carmona himself, began, say sources, 'several months ago', and continued until weeks before the putsch last weekend. The visitors were received at the White House by the man President George Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker for Latin America, Otto Reich.

Reich is a right-wing Cuban-American who, under Reagan, ran the Office for Public Diplomacy. It reported in theory to the State Department, but Reich was shown by congressional investigations to report directly to Reagan's National Security Aide, Colonel Oliver North, in the White House.

North was convicted and shamed for his role in Iran-Contra, whereby arms bought by busting US sanctions on Iran were sold to the Contra guerrillas and death squads, in revolt against the Marxist government in Nicaragua.

Reich also has close ties to Venezuela, having been made ambassador to Caracas in 1986. His appointment was contested both by Democrats in Washington and political leaders in the Latin American country. The objections were overridden as Venezuela sought access to the US oil market.

Reich is said by OAS sources to have had 'a number of meetings with Carmona and other leaders of the coup' over several months. The coup was discussed in some detail, right down to its timing and chances of success, which were deemed to be excellent.

On the day Carmona claimed power, Reich summoned ambassadors from Latin America and the Caribbean to his office. He said the removal of Chavez was not a rupture of democra tic rule, as he had resigned and was 'responsible for his fate'. He said the US would support the Carmona government.

But the crucial figure around the coup was Abrams, who operates in the White House as senior director of the National Security Council for 'democracy, human rights and international opera tions'. He was a leading theoretician of the school known as 'Hemispherism', which put a priority on combating Marxism in the Americas.

It led to the coup in Chile in 1973, and the sponsorship of regimes and death squads that followed it in Argentina, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and elsewhere. During the Contras' rampage in Nicaragua, he worked directly to North.

Congressional investigations found Abrams had harvested illegal funding for the rebellion. Convicted for withholding information from the inquiry, he was pardoned by George Bush senior.

A third member of the Latin American triangle in US policy-making is John Negroponte, now ambassador to the United Nations. He was Reagan's ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985 when a US-trained death squad, Battalion 3-16, tortured and murdered scores of activists. A diplomatic source said Negroponte had been 'informed that there might be some movement in Venezuela on Chavez' at the beginning of the year.

More than 100 people died in events before and after the coup. In Caracas on Friday a military judge confined five high-ranking officers to indefinite house arrest pending formal charges of rebellion.

Chavez's chief ideologue - Guillermo Garcia Ponce, director of the Revolutionary Political Command - said dissident generals, local media and anti-Chavez groups in the US had plotted the president's removal.

'The most reactionary sectors in the United States were also implicated in the conspiracy,' he said.

And for fun, about Iran's role in Iraq
From Bushes progress report according to Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/topN...rc=071207_1415_TOPSTORY_bush:_no_policy_shift
"We continue to assess that nearly 80 percent of suicide bombers are foreign fighters -- with the vast majority traveling to Iraq through Syria -- and to Syria from their home countries by air travel to Damascus. This Syria-based network is able to supply some 50 to 80 suicide bombers to AQI per month. Since January, there have been nearly 280 suicide events in Iraq, accounting for nearly 5,500 casualties, mostly innocent Iraqis going about their daily lives."
 
Marshall
We started attacking Iran in 1953.
We armed and supplied Saddam to attack Iran.
One could say we started it.
And don't even start with South America.
I will vote Ron Paul to change this kind of stupid foreign policy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top