You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy

[88GT]

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."

Yes, this single point was addressed in the other thread. I wish he did a better job of making the point. It is a weakness of his, but for the time being I will accept it.

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

I'm not interested in someone's rhetoric. Like I said before, I would just like to have an honest discussion without the sarcasm and over-the-top dramatics. I've been personally shredded in this thread for something I didn't do, and it's kind of irritating to be forced to play by a different set of rules.

(1) He voted for a military response specifically against those responsible for 9/11.Authorization for Use of Military Force Against TerroristsThe 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.

Was that equivalent to a declaration of war? Is it sufficient justification for him to take action if he were POTUS?

Here's another concern: POTUS isn't required to seek Congressional approval for all military action. Would Paul be willing to use the military if time were a critical factor without a formal declaration of war?

(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)

I have serious issues with this approach for a couple of reasons. First, historically, acts perpetrated under this banner have always been considered by other nations to be acts of piracy. In modern language, violations of sovereignty and/or acts of war.

Second, while it may make the act legal in terms of U.S. law, it does not do so in terms of international law, and is, in fact, a violation of the Paris Declaration of 1856. And while the U.S. was never a signatory to that treaty, we did affirm shortly after the Civil War that we would abide by the terms anyway. The chances that any other nation, particular one hostile to the U.S. is going to recognize the legitimacy of such a document is slim at best.

Third, unless the target hops his own private ship and sails into international waters, we would still be required to "invade" a foreign nation. Letters of marque do not legitimize such action if one is concerned with respecting the sovereignty of others nations. And if one is not so encumbered with concern, one has no need for the letters, does he?

I think the letters of marque answer is a Constitutionally "safe," one but without merit in terms of real world applicability in modern times. It's hiring mercenaries instead of sending your own soldiers. It's no real difference. Particularly when one considers that the letters of marque were issued to private merchants because of the lack of sufficient armed forces/navy, and that these private merchants became de facto units of the armed forces by the letters of marque.

Letters of marque as a justification for violating sovereignty is a political con game, IMO.

 

[rambone]

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.

I guess I was looking for more specifics. Has Iran flip-flopped on something?

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.

1. The Taliban is a tribal group that did not participate in 9/11. Their conflict with the U.S. has been simply a consequence to their land being occupied. Only 9% of Afghanis have heard of 9/11.

2. Iraqis have their own reasons to not like the U.S. They've been getting bombed for a long, long time. The U.S. Secretary of State once said that it was worth it to kill 500,000 Iraqi children. Its not hard to imagine that people are inspired to retaliate, as a direct consequence of our foreign policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

3. Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden specifically cited that it was U.S. foreign intervention that became his chief motivator for planning a retaliation attack.

"God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the Towers, but after the situation became unbearable—and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon—I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed—when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way: to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women." -- Osama bin Laden, Oct. 2004 (source)

​

 

[hondatech2k2]

I think RP's foreign policy is right on key with what the founding fathers warned us against. Anyone that has been to war knows that you exhaust all options before EVER comiting to open warfare. +1 for his stance on the world! And +1 for Rambone!

 

[Boiled Owl]

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.

I clicked on the OP as I have a few friends who question RP's perceived "weakness" on foreign policy, maybe it's something that can be shared to further educate. That's all. One thing all these threads have have in common is 88GT. I'm simply calling it as I see it.

Again I've NEVER called a poster on any forum a troll before this. Guess it just rubbed me the wrong way.

If I don't like the topic I usually don't wade into it. I don't want the drama.

If I'm walking thru the yard I try to avoid the steaming pile of dog

This will be my last "off topic" post in this thread.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

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.

I'd be curious to see where you came up with the 65% support statistic. And of course, those of us who hang out and post on the General Politics Forum just HAVE to be trolls if we don't agree with RP or his fanboys. How very Progressive of you; are you sure you aren't an Obama supporter?

 

[KG1]

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.

Maybe i'm missing something but I don't get the troll accusation thing here at all.

Just seems to me to be another flame job by an RP supporter when someone raises an issue with something posted in an RP thread.

Looks to me like 88GT was pointing out her opinion of the content in the video and attempting to point out other historical foreign policy aspects that are'nt be discussed. That's the way I saw it but what do I know, i've been accused of being a troll as well.

 

[rambone]

Let's all let our butts heal and discuss foreign policy.

I once got accused of trolling for posting articles in my own thread about Newt Gingrich.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

You have nothing better than a personal attack?

Easy killer, I was joking...I have no way of knowing if your lair is even near a bridge or decorated with Gruffs.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

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.

Which side of your ass did you pull the 65% number from? With numbers like that the rest of the candidates should go home. Why isn't he leading every poll taken?

Here's an idea. Allow everyone their opinion, and the right to express it. It's only American after all.

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.

National interests are funny things. They change based upon world events and cisrcumstances beyond your control. Today's friends are tomorrow's enemies. Allies turn foe on the field of battle. Welcome to world politics.

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?

We aren't remotely in the same class as the civilizations you've listed. Overall not even a footnote in world history.

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

Sometimes engaging in a quagmire is what's needed. Being 25 you probably don't understand the Cold War, but communism was (and still is) a very real threat to American liberty.

While no one (sane) wants war, sometimes you have to do it to protect yourself. The only way to eliminate war it to eliminate nationalism. Eliminate the implements of war. Eliminate poverty. Institute global fairness. Eliminate religious differences. Do all the things that the UN and one worlders want to do. The things that freedom-loving Americans revile.

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

If national security is threatened he should act, not talk, not beg. Weakness is portrayed by inaction. Jimmy Carter wouldn't act either. Look where that got us as a nation.

The President's constitutional imparative it to protect this nation as Command in Chief. There are no prohibitions against him taking action as such. This "high-mindedness" and misunderstanding of constitutional powers is one of the most dangerous aspects of a Paul presidency.

I think RP's foreign policy is right on key with what the founding fathers warned us against. Anyone that has been to war knows that you exhaust all options before EVER comiting to open warfare. +1 for his stance on the world! And +1 for Rambone!

The founders never contemplated a world you could circumnavigate in hours, where a missile could be launched to destroy an entire city in 30 minutes or less, or where a kid in Las Vegas would remotely fly a plane over Pakistan.

 

[KG1]

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.

I agree with the point about political expediency and who is fighting whom and for what reason.

The taliban and specifically Bin Laden when he was fighting with the mujahadeen did'nt have a problem with US assistance in repelling the soviet invasion.

Just like the fact that there was'nt a problem in the first Gulf war with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia requesting our assistance and allowing the US on their soil to help oust Hussein and stop his attempt at regional dominance.

I believe we had an obligation to help stop Saddam at the time because he mistook our help with the Iran war as a greenlight to do as the wished.

We wanted to curb Iranian influence in the region then but after that we needed to stop Iraq from their attempt at regional domination with control over an significant amount of oil reserves.

As to the Afganistan operations after 9/11 we would'nt have had any need to be there if the taliban was'nt harboring al-Qaeda and their terrorist training camps.

 

[lashicoN]

Being 25 you probably don't understand the Cold War, but communism was (and still is) a very real threat to American liberty.

What's that?

 

[ATOMonkey]

The US legislature is the biggest threat to American Liberty.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

I'd be curious to see where you came up with the 65% support statistic. And of course, those of us who hang out and post on the General Politics Forum just HAVE to be trolls if we don't agree with RP or his fanboys. How very Progressive of you; are you sure you aren't an Obama supporter?

Dont forget "you people" typically dont tell us whom your supporting all while criticizing RP