Ron Paul Negatives

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's not what I was saying. I'll try to explain it using your analogy.

I'm walking around and I see a bee hive, I poke it with a stick, I get stung. So I say, "Okay, I won't poke your behive anymore, my bad." But then, the bull that's in the yard sees me and he goes "moo, moo" which, roughly translated, means, "I don't like him walking on my grass...The Bees didn't like what he was doing, and they stung him, so maybe if I charge him he'll stop walking on my grass." So it charges me, and after removing a horn from my bum, I say, "okay, I won't walk on your grass anymore." So I climb into a tree but then the falcon thats in the tree goes, "ka-kawww, ka-kawww" which, roughly translated means, "I don't like him in my tree, let me see if what the bull and the bee did will work for me." And it starts pecking my eyes out.

And I fall and die.


Does that make sense? I'm being serious here, I think it's a decent analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]



Man, this analogy is getting complex. Here is my go.

I am fine with poking the bee-hive with the stick. However, our policy should be to not poke the bee hive with a stick unless there is a an extremely strong reason for poking it.

Edit: But I certainly agree that our policy cannot be to universally back down to threats. We have to meet threats agressively like you say. We just shouldn't create trouble by getting involved in situations that have nothing to do with us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do agree with that, but in a reserved sort of way. We've already poked the bee hive, and this is where my analogy comes into play - we need to stick around, get stung, and wait for the bees to chill out.

As far as other bee hives, yes, let's avoid them. But again, reserved about this. When you see the conditions the people in North Korea are living in, it's extremly sad, and hard to not want to get involved. Ron Paul talks about our involvment in Korea in the 1950's like it was a mistake, he says (paraphrasing), "look at Vietnam, they are unified and we are starting to invest in them." Yeah, but look at South Korea, it's doing extremly well, much better than Vietnam, and we already have a lot invested there. My point is, when do we get involved? Only when our security is at risk? The problem with that is it is basically what allowed WWII to become so huge - if the nations had gotten involved sooner, instead of just waiting until their security was threatened, it would have been over that much quicker. Also, how can we justify not getting involved if we see genocide occuring (not referring to WWII anymore, just in the future ie: Darfur)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, excellent argument. Even Rwanda, it seems like we should get involved in these situations. Especially if we are the "world police."

Granted, none of the main candidates would get involved to stop genocide unless it was in the US interest.


The only really strong argument against getting involved in this typs of civil wars/genocides is that whatever is going on there is extremely irrational. They aren't going to stop it because we ask or because we send troops into their country. So, we are going to have to go in, set up shop and start killing people. We will kill alot of civilians in their country because, well its hard to tell who the enemy is. Then, since we stepped into a country to save the minority, we will get 9-11 type incidents from the majority of that country.



It is a dilemma, but I think in situations like the holocaust and rwanda, we should do something. However, it shouldn't be the US saving the country. It should be the UN. As a member of the UN we send in lots of troops and support. Then the blowback is on the UN not the US.



Yeah, I think that is it. The US doesn't have the authority to do these things. By taking that authority and doing it anyway, we piss the whole world off. We should work with the UN and get these things done. We should be a member of the world, not the world police.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
His "non-interventionist" foreign policy is simplistic, naive, and was proven wrong about 1939.

[/ QUOTE ]
Any one that has looked at America's interventionalist policies for the last hundred years and hasn't found it to be horribly worse the non-interventionalism is simplistic and naive.

[Taso]

I agree Truth, although again, a few problems with it.

For starters, Ron Paul doesn't approve of our involvment in the UN, that's the most important part here. He is very in-line with Washington's non intervention, as well as no entangling alliances. (Another establishment that would have helped to prevent the major escalations in WWII - had the US been in Wilson's League of Nations, WWII may not have escalated the way it did)

Also, when the U.N. sends troops in (ie Korea, something Ron Paul is apparently disaproving of) the extreme majority of troops are United States soldiers. Why should we subject our soldiers to the command of a non-american General, when they are the primary fighting force.

And again, the U.N. is not a body of action, but of talk. How many resolutions did they pass on Iraq and not enforce? It was the United States that had to finally apply the law. (Whether or not this was neccesary, legal, or resulted in blowback is not my point, it's that the UN is not a big fan of taking action.) I'm not saying the UN doesn't work, I'm sure the world would have had a lot more wars than it did if not for the U.N.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I don't think "non-interventionist" means never get involved in anything going on with other nations ever no matter what. I think it is more of a good guideline that we dont cross without a good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Non-interventionalism =/= isolationism. The nation building, dictator-propping, and CIA run coupes America's foriegn policy has been known for has caused death and destruction around the world, not to mention aiding the anti-American movement. The War in Iraq is a prime example.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's not what I was saying. I'll try to explain it using your analogy.

I'm walking around and I see a bee hive, I poke it with a stick, I get stung. So I say, "Okay, I won't poke your behive anymore, my bad." But then, the bull that's in the yard sees me and he goes "moo, moo" which, roughly translated, means, "I don't like him walking on my grass...The Bees didn't like what he was doing, and they stung him, so maybe if I charge him he'll stop walking on my grass." So it charges me, and after removing a horn from my bum, I say, "okay, I won't walk on your grass anymore." So I climb into a tree but then the falcon thats in the tree goes, "ka-kawww, ka-kawww" which, roughly translated means, "I don't like him in my tree, let me see if what the bull and the bee did will work for me." And it starts pecking my eyes out.

And I fall and die.


Does that make sense? I'm being serious here, I think it's a decent analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]



Man, this analogy is getting complex. Here is my go.

I am fine with poking the bee-hive with the stick. However, our policy should be to not poke the bee hive with a stick unless there is a an extremely strong reason for poking it.

Edit: But I certainly agree that our policy cannot be to universally back down to threats. We have to meet threats agressively like you say. We just shouldn't create trouble by getting involved in situations that have nothing to do with us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do agree with that, but in a reserved sort of way. We've already poked the bee hive, and this is where my analogy comes into play - we need to stick around, get stung, and wait for the bees to chill out.

As far as other bee hives, yes, let's avoid them. But again, reserved about this. When you see the conditions the people in North Korea are living in, it's extremly sad, and hard to not want to get involved. Ron Paul talks about our involvment in Korea in the 1950's like it was a mistake, he says (paraphrasing), "look at Vietnam, they are unified and we are starting to invest in them." Yeah, but look at South Korea, it's doing extremly well, much better than Vietnam, and we already have a lot invested there. My point is, when do we get involved? Only when our security is at risk? The problem with that is it is basically what allowed WWII to become so huge - if the nations had gotten involved sooner, instead of just waiting until their security was threatened, it would have been over that much quicker. Also, how can we justify not getting involved if we see genocide occuring (not referring to WWII anymore, just in the future ie: Darfur)


By the way, NeBlis? Wheel of Time, or just coincidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

We are justified not getting involved because it takes money from American citizens to wage these wars and American lives to fight them. Who are we to tell a poor mother living in poverty that I'm sorry ma'am, you would have more money if only we weren't trying to stop people across the world from fighting each other.

Genocide is terrible. But it is going on in a lot of places for reasons we may never understand. If you are going to save Darfur then you must save tons of others and all this costs a lot of money. Let's clean our own house first. Of course if you want to go to Darfur and join a side and fight, have at it.

P.S. I think Ron Paul and only Ron Paul is the one person who would have stopped at nothing to get Bin Laden. He wasn't interested in being sidetracked by other wars, he wanted to go get that SOB who attacked us. I think he still does.


The biggest negative for Ron Paul is that he does not have a war chest full of funds. But at least that is something we can all do something about. Wouldn't it be amazing if a guy won who got his donations a few hundred dollars at a time? With the Internet all things are possible. If you play live, talk about him at the table, play a round for him and then donate it to his campaign. We can help this guy win. So what if all the stodgy folks want someone like Mitt or Rudy? Let's show 'em that the internet crowd has a real voice.

I may be a dreamer, but I really think this guy has a chance to win. He is telling the truth and that hits home for a lot of people.

[Kaj]

He is very in-line with Washington's non intervention, as well as no entangling alliances.

OH NOES... WEZ WONT BE ENTANGLED SO MUCH??? DO NOT WANT!!!

Also, when the U.N. sends troops in (ie Korea, something Ron Paul is apparently disaproving of) the extreme majority of troops are United States soldiers. Why should we subject our soldiers to the command of a non-american General, when they are the primary fighting force.

OH WAIT -- IF WE ARENT ENTANGLING AND INTERVENING SO MUCH, HOW ARE WE STILL THE PRIMARY FIGHTIN' DUDES EVERY FIGHT???

How many resolutions did they pass on Iraq and not enforce? It was the United States that had to finally apply the law.

ME NO LIKE UN AND NO LIKE ITS AUTHORITY ... BUT ME LIKE WHEN USA INVADES COUNTRIES TO UPHOLD UN "LAWS", EVEN WHEN UN SAYS NO DON'T GO...

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I don't think "non-interventionist" means never get involved in anything going on with other nations ever no matter what. I think it is more of a good guideline that we dont cross without a good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Non-interventionalism =/= isolationism. The nation building, dictator-propping, and CIA run coupes America's foriegn policy has been known for has caused death and destruction around the world, not to mention aiding the anti-American movement. The War in Iraq is a prime example.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Did you see that headline today about Bush's "secret" plans for Iran? Does it ever stop?

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree Truth, although again, a few problems with it.

For starters, Ron Paul doesn't approve of our involvment in the UN, that's the most important part here. He is very in-line with Washington's non intervention, as well as no entangling alliances. (Another establishment that would have helped to prevent the major escalations in WWII - had the US been in Wilson's League of Nations, WWII may not have escalated the way it did)

Also, when the U.N. sends troops in (ie Korea, something Ron Paul is apparently disaproving of) the extreme majority of troops are United States soldiers. Why should we subject our soldiers to the command of a non-american General, when they are the primary fighting force.

And again, the U.N. is not a body of action, but of talk. How many resolutions did they pass on Iraq and not enforce? It was the United States that had to finally apply the law. (Whether or not this was neccesary, legal, or resulted in blowback is not my point, it's that the UN is not a big fan of taking action.) I'm not saying the UN doesn't work, I'm sure the world would have had a lot more wars than it did if not for the U.N.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, I def think we should be in the UN (if RP is for pulling out of the UN i disagree with him on that issues; unless somebody can give compelling reasons why we should pull out). I understand that the idea of not forming alliances was to prevent our allies from getting us into wars.

I think the UN overall isn't the same as forming alliances with 1 nation or a few nations. Hopefully, it would include all nations. Then, by joining there is no favoritism. Simply the risk of having to send in troops, but if we don't agree, I don't think they can force us to send troops. (not sure about that)

I dont know much about the UN, I would like to see someone else address the UN.







Oh yeah, if the majority of troops are US troops, the majority of generals would be US generals, no? I have no idea about who commands UN troops that are sent in or how they decide which country sends how many.






I agree with you on your 3rd point about the weaknesses of the UN. The US right now helps keep the UN weak though.

[Jeffiner99]

Here is that link on the Iran story: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...uthorizes.html

Here is a nice blog about the UN from the man himself:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul82.html

Here is another:
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=7500

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]

How many resolutions did they pass on Iraq and not enforce? It was the United States that had to finally apply the law.

ME NO LIKE UN AND NO LIKE ITS AUTHORITY ... BUT ME LIKE WHEN USA INVADES COUNTRIES TO UPHOLD UN "LAWS", EVEN WHEN UN SAYS NO DON'T GO...

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont really like your post, cause well, i didn't understand alot of it. I also think you being a little insulting, which is unnecessary.

But this last thing I agree with. The US did tell UN to go F itself until it was useful. Like I said, the US right now degrades the power of the UN.