You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy

[ocsdor]

You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo

 

[88GT]

I thought it was a well-scripted cherry-picked version of history the first time Rambone posted it about a week ago. I still think that way.

 

[rambone]

I thought it was a well-scripted cherry-picked version of history the first time Rambone posted it about a week ago. I still think that way.

Which cherry-picked version of history do you ascribe to?

 

[Boiled Owl]

I thought it was a well-scripted cherry-picked version of history the first time Rambone posted it about a week ago. I still think that way.

I'm coming to the conclusion that you must be a troll. Normally you hang out on a basketweaving forum or something. Your only purpose is to crap in every Ron Paul thread on forums. Oddly this forum has 65% support for Paul And yet you have no favored candidate of your own. By all means keep bleating and let the rest of the sheep choose for you. Or perhaps you can start a thread SUPPORTING YOUR CANDIDATE OF CHOICE and let the rest of us crap in it.

 

[88GT]

Which cherry-picked version of history do you ascribe to?

Your premise is flawed: I don't cherry-pick. F'r'instance, when someone wants to point to a particular group's dislike for our presence in their homeland and uses only recent history as an example, I find it distasteful and dishonest to ignore the older history where this same group of people (same individuals now that I think about it) welcomed our presence when it helped serve their purpose. I also don't leave out the parts where our presence prior to the aggression against us was with the express permission of the leaders of those nations and/or by the governing authority of the U.N.

On second thought: make that two groups of people who benefitted from our presence.

Paul seems to forget the oldest of political maxims: expediency. He's fallen for the international "Get off my lawn" line.

 

[rambone]

Your premise is flawed: I don't cherry-pick. F'r'instance, when someone wants to point to a particular group's dislike for our presence in their homeland and uses only recent history as an example, I find it distasteful and dishonest to ignore the older history where this same group of people (same individuals now that I think about it) welcomed our presence when it helped serve their purpose. I also don't leave out the parts where our presence prior to the aggression against us was with the express permission of the leaders of those nations and/or by the governing authority of the U.N.

On second thought: make that two groups of people who benefitted from our presence.

Paul seems to forget the oldest of political maxims: expediency. He's fallen for the international "Get off my lawn" line.

Are you saying that they should have overlooked the CIA-coup of 1953 because the United States was once welcomed there? How far back in history are you looking, and to which specific instances are you referring?

 

[sepe]

Are you saying that they should have overlooked the CIA-coup of 1953 because the United States was once welcomed there? How far back in history are you looking, and to which specific instances are you referring?

I was going to bring that up but I was too busy bashing myself in the head with a hammer while wearing my Newt/Cain 2012 t-shirt.

 

[88GT]

Retraction: it wasn't a Rambone post. It was jsgofman. Sorry, Ram, I confused it with the one you posted of his interview. I thought the one posted above was the one you had posted in the stand-alone thread. My apologies.

I'm coming to the conclusion that you must be a troll. Normally you hang out on a basketweaving forum or something. Your only purpose is to crap in every Ron Paul thread on forums. Oddly this forum has 65% support for Paul And yet you have no favored candidate of your own. By all means keep bleating and let the rest of the sheep choose for you. Or perhaps you can start a thread SUPPORTING YOUR CANDIDATE OF CHOICE and let the rest of us crap in it.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ask_for_a_declaration_of_war.html#post2420882

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._of_securing_nomination_slim.html#post2419475

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._of_securing_nomination_slim.html#post2419475

To keep this post on topic to the OP: Only one person directly addressed the points I made in the posts above. Ram started a new thread as well to help shed some light on issue. But as you can see by reading through the posts following mine, nobody else has sufficiently addressed these issues. Or to be more correct, nobody has addressed them at all. Am I being a troll for pointing out what I see as severe policy flaws? If I'm so wrong, where is the Paul squad shooting me down with overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

I don't have a candidate of choice for this primary. Were you not so busy picking out and obsessing on only the posts in which I question Paul's policies or chances of election, you'd already know that. Furthermore, you seem to have missed the ones (recent ones, I might add) where I acknowledge Paul's strengths, admit he is the better ideologue to lead the country (even if my residence in reality refuses to let me believe he can actually change much), and one time I even went so far (and this one I know for a fact) as to say that I would like to be able to vote for him and only one thing would keep me from doing so.

So please, tell me how it is that I'm a troll? Does your trashing the other candidates in other threads not make you a troll as well? Is the standard of troll only relative to one's position on Paul for president? Please, how am I a troll?

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Please, how am I a troll?

The bridge and the goat skins are a dead give away.

 

[88GT]

Are you saying that they should have overlooked the CIA-coup of 1953 because the United States was once welcomed there? How far back in history are you looking, and to which specific instances are you referring?

You're putting words in my mouth that you know I did not say. Could you at least attempt an honest discussion without creating straw men deflections?

 

[88GT]

The bridge and the goat skins are a dead give away.

You have nothing better than a personal attack?

 

[Boiled Owl]

I don't have a candidate of choice for this primary. Were you not so busy picking out and obsessing on only the posts in which I question Paul's policies or chances of election, you'd already know that.

So please, tell me how it is that I'm a troll? Does your trashing the other candidates in other threads not make you a troll as well? Is the standard of troll only relative to one's position on Paul for president? Please, how am I a troll?

I can't just read this thread and maybe watch the video. YOU stepped into this thread specifically to take a couple of stabs. One at Ron Paul, One at Rambone. Now I need to engage you in debate.
Congrats you have once again successfully steered the thread away from the OP. Now lets all debate your points and forget the OP.

Now what was that OP...........

 

[88GT]

I can't just read this thread and maybe watch the video. YOU stepped into this thread specifically to take a couple of stabs. One at Ron Paul, One at Rambone. Now I need to engage you in debate.
Congrats you have once again successfully steered the thread away from the OP. Now lets all debate your points and forget the OP.

Now what was that OP...........

Wait! You're saying I have magical powers that can control your emotions and actions over the internet with the mere words I type? Really?

I think troll is the wrong word to describe me. I think "totally awesome" is more appropriate, don't you? I mean, how many other people do you know that can do that? Oh, man, this is so cool. I wonder who else this works on.

Seriously, don't you find it ironic that you're doing the same thing you're *****ing at me for? Somebody told me I should just ignore the posts I don't like. In fact, I think it might have been you, but I'm not positive on that. I don't have a good memory for that kind of thing. But it sounds like good advice, don't you think?

 

[rambone]

You're putting words in my mouth that you know I did not say. Could you at least attempt an honest discussion without creating straw men deflections?

Sorry, I was trying to understand what you meant about cherry-picked history. Let me try again without that first part.

How far back in history are you looking, and to which specific instances are you referring?

 

[Boiled Owl]

I think that our foreign policy has caused lots of turmoil esp. in the mideast. Follow the oil. Anglo-Iranian's oil fields were nationalized in 1951 in the democratically ruled Iran. We helped UK with the coup that installed the Shah. Yes I do believe in blowback. As a High Schooler all I knew was the Embassy was taken over and held hostage and the Shah was forced out. Probably didn't read about the coup until 20 years later.

Seems one would have to be dumber than a brick to not realize there might be consequences to our dallying in others affairs.

We install a puppet in Iran
We back Saddam against Iran
We back the Taliban in Afghanistan against USSR
We oust Saddam in a 10 yr war.
ALL the 9/11 terrorists are (our allies?) Saudi's
We go to war with 2 countries and finally get our target in Pakistan (harbored by our allies?)
I'm sure there's more.

Let's keep the context from the American people. More head scratching from the masses when the SHTF.

Sure, by all means lets continue with the guns and butter. Far as I know our credit with China is still good. We can't possibly be going the same route as the Romans, Ottomans, Brits, or Spaniards....can we?

 

[dross]

I'm coming to the conclusion that you must be a troll. Normally you hang out on a basketweaving forum or something. Your only purpose is to crap in every Ron Paul thread on forums. Oddly this forum has 65% support for Paul And yet you have no favored candidate of your own. By all means keep bleating and let the rest of the sheep choose for you. Or perhaps you can start a thread SUPPORTING YOUR CANDIDATE OF CHOICE and let the rest of us crap in it.

Maybe I don't understand how this forum works. I thought someone started a thread and then anyone who wanted posted a response. Is there some other way this is supposed to work? Please, post the rules for us.

You post that you like, don't like, or just have some info on this forum, expect it to be challenged. Post it 10000 times and expect it to be challenged 10000 times.

Trolling is making posts designed to provoke people into emotional responses. 88GT is making points, whether you happen to agree with them or not. She's not trolling, if anyone is trolling, it's you.

 

[rambone]

Haven't we all been called a troll once or twice? I've been called one dozens of times.

Lets stick to the topic.

 

[dross]

Haven't we all been called a troll once or twice? I've been called one dozens of times.

Lets stick to the topic.

I don't think I've ever been called a troll.

 

[rambone]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ask_for_a_declaration_of_war.html#post2420882

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._of_securing_nomination_slim.html#post2419475

To keep this post on topic to the OP: Only one person directly addressed the points I made in the posts above. Ram started a new thread as well to help shed some light on issue. But as you can see by reading through the posts following mine, nobody else has sufficiently addressed these issues. Or to be more correct, nobody has addressed them at all.

Ok, this will be as good a thread as any to discuss them.

You didn't ask me specifically, but I'll pipe up.

It's naive, immature, and illustrates a disregard for the reality of geopolitical relationships.

Trade is an alliance. And there will be instances where trade with Nation A precludes trade with Nation B because B doesn't like A.

Free trade is a myth. In the first place, we would always be operating at a disadvantage if our approach to international trade was premised on avoiding protectionist policies and assuming an at-cost standard. Sure, China would love to have its goods imported duty-free, while it smacks every U.S. export to China with a substantial penalty for simply being American. Free trade is only free if the other players agree to the rules. I think the odds of that happening are slim to none. Moreover, in order to obligate the other players to honor their promises, one must either enter into a treaty or hope for the best. Treaties are alliances. Back to point one.

His non-intervention policy is a little too pat. He does not allow for the massive middle ground wherein U.S. sovereignty may not be directly threatened, but significant U.S. interests are. Or U.S. Allies are. Is he going to withdraw from every active treaty currently on the books? Would he fail to fulfill U.S. obligations contracted prior to his presidency? While I don't think he would do so maliciously or overtly, I think he would drag his feet and manipulate circumstances to his advantage.

Example: and I'll make this one less muddied. The U.S. is attacked. There is no question about the identity of the aggressor. Kerflopistan has just bombed the west coast from Seattle to the Baja Peninsula. What would Paul do? I have only ever seen two answers from him/his supporters. They are

1. Wait for Congress to declare war and then respond. (How delightfully understated, chap. I do hope they finish up quickly. It's almost tea time.)

2. Address the responsible party with the appropriate action.

As you can see, variations on the same theme. What's important is what I don't see. I don't see Paul SEEKING a declaration of war from Congress. And there has never been a Congressional declaration of war without a request from the sitting president. So would Paul actually make that request from Congress? Honestly, I haven't seen or heard anything that says he will. The possibility always exists that he will (I have no doubt that the appropriate people behind the scenes will be advising him to do so). But he is not making that point clear or definitive. Quite the contrary, he is creating an image of pacifism by refusing to acknowledge military action as a legitimate and/or likely response.

And I don't see specifics. I want to know he's going to kick butt and take names. This isn't some political philosophy class we're talking about. This is real life where bad people do bad things. Okay, so I know real specifics are hard to come by. This is all hypothetical so much would depend on the nature of the circumstances, who was responsible, etc. But he can at least throw us a bone now and then.

Paul specifically addresses Kerflopistan in this interview: Under what circumstances would Ron Paul ask for a declaration of war?

He takes National Security seriously, but he insists on not engaging in more quagmires like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

If National Security is threatened, he will seek a declaration of war and it will be "all out war."

Additionally, Paul seems to operate on a premise that the only real threat/action warranting military response is a clearly defined attack by an internationally-recognized nation-state by uniformed members of their armed forces.

What are the chances that's going to be the next threat to the U.S.?

According to our leaders, the chances of nation-states threatening us are astronomically high. Iran, Syria, etc. They're going to wipe us off the map. Gingrich also named North Korea and Lebanon in his WW3 article.

And what would Paul do if it weren't?

If it weren't a uniformed army, he has already told us what he would do.

(1) He voted for a military response specifically against those responsible for 9/11.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists​

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001), one of two resolutions commonly known as "AUMF" (the other being "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"), was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.
​

(2) He twice introduced a bill for specifically targeting the guilty individuals of the 9/11 terror attacks.

Letter of marque and reprisal
​

Calling the September 11, 2001, attacks an act of "air piracy", Paul introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. Letters of marque and reprisal, authorized by article I, section 8 of the Constitution, would have targeted specific terrorist suspects instead of invoking war against a foreign state.[20] Paul reintroduced this legislation as the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007.[60] He voted with the majority for the original Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in Afghanistan.[61] In April 2009, following the Maersk Alabama hijacking, he proposed issuing letters of marque to combat the problem of piracy in Somalia.[62] (source)

​

Keep in mind, none of these concerns is rooted in hawkish desire to go around bombing the hell out of anyone and everyone. I'm perfectly fine keeping our nose here at home.

And finally, I think Paul has an absurdly sophomoric approach to what motivates people on the other side of the geographical boundary. And the conclusions he has drawn with regards to foreign affairs of the last 10-15 years makes me sick to my stomach.

Specifically, what do you think is absurdly sophomoric?

 

[88GT]

Sorry, I was trying to understand what you meant about cherry-picked history. Let me try again without that first part.

How far back in history are you looking, and to which specific instances are you referring?

We can go back as far as you want. And the farther back you go, the more my point is proven. Consistency is not a trait of nations. Political expediency, however, is. So it's convenient and beneficial now for them to say they don't like us on their land (ignoring the fact that we weren't there without cause until they came at us), but they have no qualms with it if they think it helps them. In people we would call such flip-flopping hypocrisy and it's a sign of poor character. In nations it's a sign of political manipulation.

On a side note: I still don't see how the Iranian coup justifies Al Queda/Iraq or Afghanistan/Taliban aggression against the U.S.