More strange statements today from Ron Paul

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
Some of my friends have been speculating whether Ron Paul (R-TX) could win the 2012 election.

Considering the disaster the Democrats are fielding, Mickey Mouse could win the election.

And yes, even a foreign-policy kook like Ron Paul could conceivably win, if he got the Republican nomination.

Paul said today (Fox News Sunday) that, if he did not get the Republican nomination, he has no intention of running as an independent, and doesn't want to.

He also said that he believes that imposing heavy sanctions against Iran, would be effective in stopping them from getting nuclear weapons. And he said that almost in the same breath as his statement that if we look at what happened in Iraq, we imposed heavy sanctions against them, people starved and a few little kids died, and it pushed them into war.

When I hear Ron Paul talk about foreign affairs, sometimes I wonder if the man is completely sane.

If Ron Paul is elected President, within his four-year term we would see an attack by Iran against Israel, either with nuclear weapons or with conventional weapons backed by the credible nuclear threat. And that war has a good chance of spreading into the nuclear Armageddon that the world has so far been able to avoid despite all the nuclear proliferation that has taken place.

Ron Paul's unquestioned integrity and admirable fealty to the Constitution, will do us litte good once his foreign-policy naivety produces the results it must. He will quickly become the United States' version of Neville Chamberlain... with the crucial difference that Nazi Germany didn't have nukes, and still intended to trade with the people it had conquered once they won that war.

Fortunately, the blinders-on Ron Paul kooks, while voluble, are very few in number - barely enough to win straw polls of a few thousand people when vigorously regimented and shuttled from place to place. Once the main drive for the election gets under way, they will be drowned out as their scarce numbers always are, and Paul will be once again relegated to the fringe of conservatism. It's kind of a shame, really - his loyalty to the Constitution, and integrity to his own ideals, is sorely missed by this country. But his strange naivety in foreign affairs, and blinders-on refusal to examine the long history of Eurasia, completely trumps his many good points, and would make him a disaster as President.
 
Werbung:
He also said that he believes that imposing heavy sanctions against Iran, would be effective in stopping them from getting nuclear weapons. And he said that almost in the same breath as his statement that if we look at what happened in Iraq, we imposed heavy sanctions against them, people starved and a few little kids died, and it pushed them into war.
I have a feeling you misunderstood his statements on the subject:

WASHINGTON - GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul says “offering friendship” to Iran, not sanctions, would be a more fruitful to achieving peace with Tehran.

The Texas congressman says fears about Iran’s nuclear program have been “blown out of proportion.” He says tough penalties are a mistake because, as he says was the case in Iraq, they only hurt the local population and still paved a path to war.


When asked on “Fox News Sunday” what he would do to deter Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions, Paul said “maybe offering friendship to them.”

Paul’s remarks put him at odds with both the Bush and Obama administrations; U.S. policy has relied heavily on sanctions and diplomacy to try to convince Tehran to abandon its atomic program. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful.

If Ron Paul is elected President, within his four-year term we would see an attack by Iran against Israel, either with nuclear weapons or with conventional weapons backed by the credible nuclear threat.
A war between Israel and Iran seems inevitable, no matter who becomes president.


But his strange naivety in foreign affairs, and blinders-on refusal to examine the long history of Eurasia, completely trumps his many good points, and would make him a disaster as President.
I used to consider his FP views naive as well, but he makes valid points that are either totally ignored or twisted into strawmen to be more easily written off as "kooky", which seems to be what you did with his statements about sanctions against Iran.

For example, we send more "foreign aid" money to the enemies of Israel than we do to Israel, and we force Israel to spend 100% of the money we send them for defense on US products, effectively subsidizing the US MIC. Which is more "kooky", supporting that policy, or wanting to end it?
 
Ron Paul is the best candidate IMO. He is truly conservative/libertarian unlike most of the others. His positions on liberty, government, foreign policy, taxation, business, etc are the most consistent. But, sadly he is not likely to win the nomination...but he did just win the IL straw poll.

His foreign policy views have been terribly misrepresented. I think his plan to bring the troops (all the troops) home should resonant with most Americans. We can't afford nor is it in our best interest, to keep troops stationed all over the world.

His plan - Plan To Restore America makes great sense...
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
 
There is a lot to like with the good doctor but his foreign policy isn't one of them. Neither sanctions nor friendship will sway Iran. And the friendship angle sounds a lot like Obama's ridiculed approach that even he abandoned.

I realize that dealing with the rest of the world is annoying, inconvenient and expensive but the world is too small to avoid it.

Of course that is, in my humble opinion.

I agree that his stances get "adjusted" (a favorite tactic and sadly effective with an uninformed electorate). I do appreciate your efforts to set this right. Its important.
 
Neither sanctions nor friendship will sway Iran.
I agree... But that leaves what options? Military action? That's exactly what Iran wants, for the US and/or Israel to take military action against Iran's "peaceful" use of Nuclear technology.

And the friendship angle sounds a lot like Obama's ridiculed approach that even he abandoned.
Until you look at the details... For example, Paul would not try to "buy" their friendship with foreign aid dollars.

I realize that dealing with the rest of the world is annoying, inconvenient and expensive but the world is too small to avoid it.
It's just a fundamental disagreement on how to deal with the rest of the world. One term in particular that's used to describe RP's FP is "Isolationist", but that is incorrect:

Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence". Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.

Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their polices from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade.
 
Now I see from newspaper articles that Ron Paul apparently did NOT support the use of sanctions. I stand corrected.

RonPaul said:
Paul opposes a bill passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week that would strengthen sanctions against Iran. “When you put on strong sanctions, those are acts of war,’’ Paul said.

Instead, what Ron Paul suggested as a means of preventing Iran from building or acquiring nuclear weapons, is or offer them "friendship".

Asked by host Chris Wallace how he would persuade Iran not to build a nuclear weapon if he opposed the use of sanctions or military force, Paul responded, “maybe offering friendship to them.’’


I think I almost prefer the sanctions idea. While useless, at least sanctions offer the ILLUSION of doing something that can work.

But "friendship"?

I was right the first time. If elected, Ron Paul will be the Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century... except Chamberlain's opponent didn't have nukes, and was still interested in trade with the countries it conquered, not 100% annihilation.

Is it possible for an actual human above the age of 10 to be as naive as Ron Paul apparently is?


Quotes are from the Boston Globe, http://bostonglobe.com/news/nation/...d-sway-iran/31cyILneO0df9rh4ppdPXL/story.html
 
I agree... But that leaves what options? Military action? That's exactly what Iran wants, for the US and/or Israel to take military action against Iran's "peaceful" use of Nuclear technology.

lead from strength, its the only thing they respect. you have to make them believe you are willing to pull the trigger.


Until you look at the details... For example, Paul would not try to "buy" their friendship with foreign aid dollars.

if not the carrot OR the stick then whats left ? I'm serious, no clue as to accomplish what yo suggest.

It's just a fundamental disagreement on how to deal with the rest of the world. One term in particular that's used to describe RP's FP is "Isolationist", but that is incorrect:
Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence". Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.

Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their polices from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade.

avoid alliances with other nations

Nope. We DO need more reliable alliences but we can't be Switzerland, just too big for that.
 
I love Ron Paul. His positions on most things are great. But, this bit on offering friendship to Iran is strange.
 
lead from strength, its the only thing they respect. you have to make them believe you are willing to pull the trigger.
We aren't dealing with the Soviet Union, a policy of MAD will not work with Iran. These nutjobs already know we are willing to pull the trigger, that's what they want, they want a global war, they want global chaos and they want us to "pull the trigger" on all of it:

12th Imam: The Shiite Muslim President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, is deeply committed to the Islamic Messiah, al Mahdi. There have been many through the years claiming to be the Hidden Imam but Ahmadinejad believes he is yet to come. He claims that he is to personally prepare the world for the coming Mahdi. In order to save the world, it must be in a state of chaos and subjugation. Ahmadinejad claims he was “directed by Allah to pave the way for the glorious appearance of the Mahdi”. This apocalyptic directive includes some very scary proclamations.

if not the carrot OR the stick then whats left ? I'm serious, no clue as to accomplish what yo suggest.
My point was that it doesn't matter who our president is, or what their strategy for dealing with Iran might be, Iran is going to do whatever Iran is going to do and nothing we do is going to change that.

Nope. We DO need more reliable alliences but we can't be Switzerland, just too big for that.
Switzerland is neutral, nobody, not even RP, is suggesting that we become a neutral, isolationist country. The concept of an alliance needs to be more thouroughly discussed, it would seem we have very different concepts about what an alliance is and should be.
 
I love Ron Paul. His positions on most things are great. But, this bit on offering friendship to Iran is strange.

Reminds me of a cartoon I once saw back when electronic calculators first came out. First came the basic 4-bangers, the simplest ones that could only add subtract, multiply, and divide. Soon manufacturers started putting more and more features on them to try to get more market share. But costs went up for the fancy ones too, and some had certain features that were very good while missing other features. Their ads tried to downplay the missing features while hyping the features it did have, of course.

The cartoon showed a salesman showing a calculator to a customer and saying, "It has multiple memories, transcendental functions, a big display, good battery life, and an attractive case. These advantages more than make up for the fact that it's missing the digit 9".

Ron Paul is missing the digit 9, and maybe a few others. What does his loyalty to the Constitution and economic conservatism matter, if he's going to stand idly by and let mass-murdering terrorist nations such as Iran, get nuclear weapons? If a legitimate-appearing freighter steams into New York, San Francisco, Boston, or Seattle, and then lets loose with a few megatons, how exactly will Ron Paul's concern for the Constitution do us any good at that point, if he let the other happen?
 
Ron's philosophy is sound and his practical application could be modified with good advisors. I would extend this same analysis to any candidate. Even BO deserved to be understood as a person with little experience who would later have a team to help him. In his case the team did little good and his philosphy as far is it goes leads him to make disasterous decisions.


Perhpas Ron would not take advise from a good team and make bad decisions too?
 
Ron's philosophy is sound and his practical application could be modified with good advisors. I would extend this same analysis to any candidate. Even BO deserved to be understood as a person with little experience who would later have a team to help him. In his case the team did little good and his philosphy as far is it goes leads him to make disasterous decisions.


Perhpas Ron would not take advise from a good team and make bad decisions too?


I would hope he would surround himself with better people as opposed to Obama who surrounded himself with those even less capable than himself.
 
Werbung:
To look at Iran as an evil terrorist people is the insane view. Their government, forced on the people as shown in the riots in 2010, is to blame. Obama did indeed offer them friendship, offered it to the whole world in an effort to end the US forcefull domination of all who oppose our policies. Yes, we should oppose nuclear armament in Iran, yes we should quarrantine N Korea and be battle ready. We need a world where each nation works for the betterment of their own people not for the ruling elite, this policy is working. Now all that is left is for the US to remove it's troops from places we don't need to protect and project our influence through that which we do best (or used to) trade and diplomacy.
 
Back
Top