Agree. Yes, and that is why I hope the US people will wake up. Yes, I know this but you also have something that is almost unique and worth fighting for. One nation under God protecting(or should be...) the freedom of the individual. It will swing back by the will of the people. It don't happen automatically without any reason. Again, the people need to wake up and face the truth. There is a lot of evil but it seems you missed my point. More wars, control and lies will not solve the problem. It will only speed it up. I agree that US foreign policy is wrong now. I can't say exactly for how long but that is really not that important. It has been wrong for long and the problem has been growing for long. We can only change things that happen now. Ron Paul is the only one who seems to differ from the others and is trying to find the root cause.
Couldn't agree more. This is tea party philosophy at its core, but the fans of big government are more entrenched now than at any time I can recall. Rights of the individual are the reason Paul is a Republican, in my opinion. I find it fascinating that liberals are often those least in favor of individual liberty on that front. This all has very little to do with foreign policy. Perhaps we can agree that wars themselves are evil, and as they say, truth is the first casualty of war. That leaves us to debate who it is that declared war. Like most Americans, I believe it was a small band of nut jobs who attacked US embassies in the 1990s, and the twin towers in 2001. Ron Paul and the few who like his foreign policy say it was America who declared war on the peaceful Islamists by our actions, such as support for Israel, over the previous 50 years. Not surprisingly, this is a view the Islamists like to promote and peddle as god's honest truth. We are all free to choose what which source we would rather believe, but I am going to go with the source that doesn't try to make the abuse of women, racism against the Jews, and the obliteration of religious freedom part of their governing principals. I guess you missed my point. Our foreign policy has been arguably much worse on a moral basis at many points in the past. IMO, our current foreign engagements don't lack for moral clarity, they lack for a finality that the American people will be happy with. An end. A conclusion. Foreign wars are anathema to a Democracy. If and when we walk away from Afghanistan, and the Taliban murders everyone who supported Karzai(just like Sadaam did post 1991), we will be called accomplices to genocide. If we stay to promote stability, we will be called foreign meddlers. The truth is, if countries like Sweden(and the rest of Europe) put 35% of their revenue towards a reasonable military, Afghanistan's future could be different. To that end, I blame Afghanistan's fate on Sweden. Is there a candidate in your country I can support who will help Sweden do it's part? Not true! So are Ralph Nader, Sarah Palin, and Lyndon LaRouche. Even Alvin Greene is taking another shot at solving America's problems. Lets not confuse desire to help with good ideas, even though all of the above, including Paul, have at least one or two good ideas.
"We" recently voted to stay in Afghanistan with our troops. Shortly after this decision we had our first terror attack. A man living in Sweden, claiming to be muslim, did this because "we" decided to stay in Afghanistan. The attack was a failure(for him) and the he only killed himself. It will be easy for you to find a candidate as 90% of our Riksdag supported the decision. I wish we had at least one close to Ron Paul, there is none.
I'm surprised to find 90% support in your leadership for remaining in Afghanistan, especially in light of Sweden's role in WWII. Perhaps it is an artifact of belonging to the EU. Either way, that wasn't what I was getting at. I'm happy you guys are there and decided to stick it out. My point is, you guys spend 1.3% of your GDP on the military as compared to the US at 4.3%. You guys had a budget surplus this year, and I'm glad for you, but maybe if your country, and every ally we have out there was willing to put up 3%, we wouldn't need to put up 4.3%. Maybe we would have a balanced budget too. Maybe we wouldn't need to have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan to Sweden's 500. We used to get praise from our allies for picking up the tab, and now we get sh*t. Maybe Ron Paul has it right. Maybe we should let you guys all fend for yourselves. Looking at it historically, Sweden supplied raw materials to the Nazis to avoid conflict. Had the Nazi's won, your "neutrality" would have made you Nazi prison b*tches, surrendering up your Jews and gays to be gassed. Does it really need to get that bad for people to pull their own weight, and quit calling their allies "evil" for picking up the slack? It seems there would be a better way. I'll guarantee you one thing. If Paul did make it to the President's office and immediately rolled out his "non-interventionist"(isolationist) foreign policy, Sweden and a lot of other European nations would immediately be digging deep in their pockets to pay for their own defense.
I don't think you can compare the situation we have today with the one in WW II. I'm amazed that you do this. With such comparisons I find the discussion completely useless. I don't call allies evil. I said wars, lies etc. are evil, and I thought you agreed. It seems not.
I didn't say the situation is the same. My comment was a slap at Ron Paul's policy of non-intervention, using Sweden's policy of neutrality as an example. Lets ask a related question. What, if anything, should have been done about Rwanda? The UN sat by and watched hundreds of thousands of people get butchered by their neighbors because of some ethnic designation given to them by your neighbors, the Dutch. The US was busy "intervening" in Bosnia at the time, and lets face it. There are very few US strategic concerns in Rwanda. So, what do you think? Let em die? I do agree wars and lies are evil in nature, but sometimes unavoidable and necessary. Conflict avoidance does not make us any less evil, and in some cases, as I pointed out, makes us more.
In this specific case I think that UN peace keeping forces should have been used to stop the war/slaughtering. As far as I understand that was the only available alternative at that time. I don't know what Ron Paul would say about this specific case, it seems that would be more interesting than my opinion. I agree that it's sometimes impossible to avoid conflict and I do think that there are times we have to defend ourselves. In the 9/11 case it would have been reasonable to try and find those responsible and punish them. What we have now is a global witch hunt for anyone that could be suspected for anything that might be a crime related to terrorism. We have wars that kill hundreds of innocent people everyday. At the same time we sacrifice the values we stand for. That is not reasonable to me. I know Ron Paul is not perfect but I do think he is a good option compared to the alternatives. If he became President he will have to adjust to the will of the people/congress and if we can leave most of the lies and hidden agenda outside the decisions we have a chance to create a better world.
Not that I can speak for Ron Paul, but I suspect he would say it is none of our business. UN forces were in the country at the time, but they did nothing. Going a step farther, would you agree that it is sometimes necessary to enter conflict to defend or support an ally, and not just yourself? Would you agree that it is sometimes necessary to enter a conflict to defend someone who is incapable of defending themselves? What is your take on US involvement in Kuwait and Gulf War I? Are you saying terrorism is an imaginary threat? In regard to legislation, he absolutely has to submit to the will of the people, Congress, and the Judiciary. Unfortunately for Paul, foreign policy is one of those things a President has very direct control over. Its a deal breaker. Your argument above would be much more applicable to a candidate who didn't agree with your views on abortion. No president is going to single handedly overturn Roe V. Wade. If it is spending you want to bring under control, you'll need the right man in the Oval office and a replacement for many of our currently seated congressmen.
Yes, I think that we sometimes need to defend those who are weak if they ask for our help and I think this was the case in Kuwait. That was an emergency situation and real major threat to a whole country that could have been invaded. There was a war, the enemy was defeated and things got back to normal again. No, but it's nothing new and I'm afraid it is now used as an excuse to do all kind of things that normally would have been impossible/unlawful. Find the responsible individuals in the same way as with other crimes. Don't bypass the law and stick to the truth.
Defeated no, driven out yes. Do you think Sadaam should have been allowed to remain in power? If you do, what do you think should have been done while he violated the terms of his surrender repetitively over the 10 year period that followed? By the way, your support for the first gulf war already puts you at odds with Paul's philosophy. So terrorist attacks are nothing new. Are you proposing that we just accept a few thousand people here and there will die from them and that is just part of life? Are you proposing nations who shelter terrorists should be allowed to do so? If terrorism is all so old school and part of the norm, what exact measures, if any, would you propose be taken in regard to the problem?
He was allowed to remain in power. At that time it seemed reasonable. I don't know the terms in detail but I guess there must have been some kind of agreement on what should happen if the terms were violated. The answer was given in my previous answer. Follow the law and stick to the truth. No crime will disappear and neither will terrorism. Countries who shelter terrorists should not be allowed to do so but starting a war and creating a bigger problem is not the solution. Should US invade UK since UK "shelter" Julian Assange? Should we start to lie just because we don't like Julian Assange and want him to stay in prison?
That is a statement of fact. I was looking for an opinion. We dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan after they had already offered a conditional surrender, with that condition being the Emperor got to hang on to his throne. Not sure why Iraq would be any different or how Bush Sr. screwed the pooch so badly on this one. Yah, I remember Colin Powell selling that. Iraq repetitively violated the terms of his surrender over the next decade. He also committed genocide against those who rose up when they thought he would lose power after the Kuwait invasion. What happened when Bush Jr. invaded Iraq is what should have happened several times under Clinton's watch. What good is a surrender if you wont even enforce the terms of it? I'm not seeing a whole lot of answers in your text here. Just hand wringing and wishful thinking. To me, that sounds like acceptance of a few thousand dead bodies here and there. Obviously terrorist attacks were on the rise long before we invaded Iraq or Afghanistan. They are going to have to be dealt with. If and when we produce a request for extradition, I have full confidence that the UK, Australia, and/or Sweeden will hand over Assange. No need for an invasion.
Maybe we have different views on what caused the hate to grow. I don't know. The US presence didn't start with the wars. The alternative that is now promoted means that a few hundred thousands(maybe more) innocent dies instead of a few thousands. Personal liberties are lost and the problem grows. Exactly what those few insane individuals wished for. On top of that I'm afraid the economic reality not only in the US but also partly in the EU will make it possible for other bad powers to get a grip on the free society. I'm sure they will be happy that we ruined personal liberty before they take over the show. It will be easier to control the masses. As someone once said: "An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.". I think we have an error to correct and I don't think the solution is more of the same error. The problem is that there still to few that sees(or want to see) the error. Let's hope it's based on the law and free from lies. Those good guys would never lie or "modify" the law as they see fit, would they? (I truly want to think like this but for some reason it feels like irony when writing it...) I couldn't resist adding a video. I'm sure you'll like it. [video=youtube;xcQQ05XtAQ4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4[/video]
Ok. So for the record, the answer is yes. We accept we lose a few thousand here and there to terrorism. Got it. Still not hearing a solution. Do you have any idea what we did to the Japanese in America during WWII? Here is some reading you might find interesting, written by the daughter of some of those interned Japanese. Those policies didn't turn into a permanent state of apartheid, or the death of our country, and you think the mild measures we are taking right now are going to be the death of us? There is enough truthful information at hand right now to persuade more than 60% of Americans that he should be arrested. Getting 60% of Americans to agree on anything takes an act of god. I haven't seen international polling, but I suspect support levels are similar. There are enough laws on the books right now to extradite and try him, without writing anything new. Harry Truman would have done it without batting an eye. I actually did like it. Paul presented his usual logical fallacies, like "they came over here because we were over there", ignoring that we weren't over there on 9-11. At 1:40, more idiocy."There is one reason the enemy... want to kill us. And that is occupation. We occupy their territory". I guess Mr. Paul must have been asleep when they bombed two US embassies in Africa and the twin towers, prior to any "occupation of their territories"(Does Al Queda have a territory?). I also love his when he calls Osama bin Laden "our former partner in crime", as if it is a settled matter that the US ever even worked with Bin Laden. The only other people making that claim are Fidel Castro and Iranian Press TV. Even Al Queda's top people denied any such relationship. All this bullsh*t makes for a good political speech. Filling a room with yahoos who are nodding and clapping at your every quip is a good way to get yourself elected. Like I said, you broke with Paul's ideology the minute you supported US intervention in Kuwait, and the ensuing US presence in Saudi Arabia to enforce the sanctions and no-fly zone. A far stretch from an occupation, but it was definitely a sticking point for Bin Laden, in his own words. Also, as I mentioned before, I LIKE Paul in Congress, despite all his foreign policy lunacy. He's a fiscal conservative. What does his foreign policy matter when he is in charge of making laws and writing budgets? Just keep him out of the white house. I have the same feelings about Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell.
I sincerely hope he runs. Liberty, and common sense needs to be restored. And doctor Paul is the only man (currently) capable of doing it.