Will Ron Paul run in 2012?

There are two more years left until then and plenty of opportunities to go from zero to hero and the other way around .

 

True, it will be interesting to follow this. I personally think he can win this time. Unless he is assassinated or his health is too weak. He might also think that fighting the Fed is too important and will put focus on that instead.

 

I concur.

He may, just to gather more press for his cause. He's unlikely to win, because his bizarrely unrealistic views on international relations are not shared by the majority of the burgeoning tea party movement.

Sounds like the standard blurb on a playmate data sheet. Tell me again how free trade would have gotten rid of the Nazi's?

And, as per usual, the Paulista isn't eligible to vote in the United States. Ron Paul seems immensely popular among people who can't vote in U.S. elections.

Exactly. The old man has his set values, which is attractive. Unfortunately, he unrealistically believes that his opponents will fight by his rules. I like Ron on so many levels, but nothing can help the fact that he is completely resistant to reality.

I concur again.

 

I don't see the problem here. The World War II was something completely different compared to what we have now. I think Ron Paul would have gone to war in a similar way as Roosevelt did. After Congress declares war.

 

Who wouldn't declare war after Pearl Harbor. The difference is, Ron Paul would find no reason to be in the European conflict. Not our problem.

9-11 was every bit the size event that Pearl Harbor was, but without a nation state to declare war against. I strongly suspect Ron Paul would have lived true to his beliefs and said, "We brought it on ourselves, so we are just going to sit here and suck it up". That may sell well from your perspective, but it goes against our culture, which is one of the things that puts Paul so out of touch with most Americans.

 

Afghanistan harbored the culprits responsible for 911 and was properly invaded when extradition was refused. What Paul would not have done would be to deceive the American people into an expansive and unnecessary war in Iraqi.

There is no comparison between the bombing of Pearl Harbor and what a handful of extremist concocted for a days event.

 

There it is. The intersection between Ron Paul and Breeze Wood, with one exception. Paul openly blames America for 9-11, so saying that Afghanistan would have been attacked had Paul been president is very questionable.

 

I'm curious, do you think 9-11 would have happened with Ron Paul as president and a different foreign policy the decades before 9-11?

I don't know but I tend to think that there would have been no reason to hate the US in the same way as many muslims do now. Since the US has been involved for many years in the middle east and not always on the same side it's easy to understand that when people look for someone to blame for their problems they might look at the US. If they don't like the US presence they might indirectly support people who lost someone and are filled by hate = more terrorism. The leaders of the more strict Islam can and will use this to gain power.

It's a bad circle. How to brake it? Bomb them and fill the area with concrete?

 

Well of course. Weakness only emboldens bad people. 9/11 is a direct result of the teaching of Muhammad and has as much to do with U.S. foreign policy as it does with the price of gym socks in Mongolia.

Blaming the victim is absolute stupidity. This is no different that saying "Of course that woman deserved to be raped, look at the way she was dressed!"

Osama bin Laden and his boys planned and executed the 9/11 attacks as part of their efforts to create a global Islamic caliphate ruled by Sharia law. Anything which the U.S. does other than submit to rule by a Muslim Caliphate and the payment of jizyah will result in attacks. There is a saying in America -- "Millions for defense; but not a once cent for tribute." Americans simply will not pay jizyah or submit to being ruled by Sharia law and the Quran commands that Muslims continue to murder non-Muslims until these demands are met.

Repentance Verse 29: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The Cow, Verse 216: Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.

Women, Verse 74: Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.

Women, Verse 89: They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,

Women, Verse 104: Relent not in pursuit of the enemy. If ye are suffering, lo! they suffer even as ye suffer and ye hope from Allah that for which they cannot hope. Allah is ever Knower, Wise.

The Spoils of War, Verse 12:: When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.​

 

If the US foreign policy of the decades before 9-11 is to blame for 9-11, having Ron Paul as president in 2001 would certainly not prevented it from happening.

We don't really need to play hypothetical here because Osama Bin Laden was very clear about what his angst was with the US leading up to 9-11. US presence in Saudi Arabia, and cooperation with the Saudi government. He later hijacked the Palestinian conflict as a recruitment tool, but even that does not really target US foreign policy in the decades prior.

I'd really prefer you use the words "Ignorant goat f*cker", or IGF for short, instead of Muslim when referring to terrorists and people who hate. Most Muslims I know in America absolutely love this place. Maybe you can explain to me what reasoning of the IGFs that set off a bomb in a night club in Bali. Was it about Australian foreign policy, or Balinese ethnicity? How bout the London train station bombing? The train attacks in Russia? There may not be any reason to hate any of these people, but IGFs will do what IGFs do.

Your last sentence touches on the real issue. There will always be people, both within the US, and outside of it that disagree with our policies, but you won't see them kicking their dog or bombing civilians because of it. I'd say going forward, you are going to see a nexus of ignorant Islamists and left wing anarchists, who are busily taking notes. Putting someone like Ron Paul in charge of foreign policy would only further the insanity.

Lets flip that question. Do we give them all a hug? Right now we send them all money, and that doesn't seem to help.

Imagine for a moment that we follow Ron Paul's suggestions and pull all the troops out. 40k in Japan, 32k in S. Korea, more in the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Germany, UK, and many other places on the planet. We would also have to follow his suggestion of cutting off the outrageous sums of money we send to each of these countries along with Israel, Egypt, Palestine, Pakistan, Afghanistan. The later suggestion would have the most profound effect, IMO. Leaders would fall, chaos would ensue, wars would break out, and many economies would collapse. All of the sudden, places like the EU would have to invest money in a large conventional army again, instead of socialized health care. At some point, several million dead bodies later(assuming the war didn't go nuclear), we would reach stability from a multi-national force that would use much more draconian means of dealing with trouble makers than we are used to today.

You want to break the circile, we should just skip WWIII and places like the EU need to start investing militarily in keeping the peace in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and parts of Africa. Since we know that isn't going to happen, I choose following current US foreign policy over the Ron Paul WWIII scenario.

 

Muslims have seen fit to make war on infidels in the name of their religion since its foundation--North Africans didn't exactly speak Arabic originally. I wouldn't blame the United States for 9/11.

 

So, what is your solution? Bomb them and fill the area with concrete? Because the current foreign policy only make things worse.

Once the US was a nation that people(including me) admired. I'm afraid that is no longer the case. There is no longer anything special with the US except for a few shining exceptions. All values that were admired have been sacrificed in the war against terrorism.

Freedom and bravery has been replaced by fear and control.

I'm truly sad over the development. The world needed a US as it used to be.

That is probably the main reason people outside the US likes Ron Paul. It reminds them of the values that once made the US a proud nation. Something other nations could look up to.

 

You don't strike me as that old. When you say you want the US as it used to be, are you referring to the US that propped up the Shah of Iran, had Noriega the Drug dealer on the payroll, sold to both sides of the Iran/Iraq Conflict, or the US that funded the insurgency in Afghanistan? My guess is a lot of that stuff went down before you were born, and most Americans are not particularly fond of going back to at least a few of those types of actions.

 

Couldn't US just mind its own business like it used to till WWII? I bet no one would bother it. Keep buying our crap with your rectangular piece of plastic and I don't see any reason why anyone would wish any harm to them.

 

History much ?

 

You mean like back when Thomas Jefferson invaded Libya?

 

Well, I wish I was born 200 years ago.

God knows US has not been perfect throughout history.

A couple of important things have changed. What before was isolated bad actions taken by the government has become standard procedure and is now mostly supported by the people.

Americans have always been willing to die for freedom...until recently. Now the fear of terrorists allow the government to remove freedom from it's own people.

It's like you lose the thing you fight for and don't see it.

Let me put it this way. It's like trying to kill evil with more evil. It simply don't work. The result is only death.

 

Sorry, but you're a victim of propaganda.

I hate the U.S. government so much that I left the damned country, and the evil bastards in the U.S. government are still nowhere near as evil as the evil bastards they are fighting in Afghanistan and the Middle East. It is simply not a reasonable comparison.

I'll tell you what causes death -- willful submission to evil. That's what you're proposing and it is simply delayed suicide.

 

What propaganda? People and leaders here in Sweden are worse. We're in the same "war" as the US even without any major attacks. We're brainwashed by how unsafe we are. That's the only propaganda I hear and read. The truth is that we've never been safer and still politicians can limit our freedom very easily because people are afraid...for what?

I guess it depend how you define evil. Freedom, peace and truth is not evil to me and that is what I'm proposing. If that is submitting to evil...what is submitting to good? Bondage, war and lies?

 

Nobody has.

The very structure of our government implies support of the people. It has always been this way. It is our blessing and our curse.

And we have many times in the past. You need to study US history a bit, but we have all kinds of wonderful events in our past. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, Trail of tears, internment of the Japanese, McCarthyism. I'm not a particular fan of the current round of intrusions on our civil liberties, but the pendulum will swing back. Such is the nature of a free society. Again, nothing new.

Well, i'm not sure what you are referring to as evil, but most wars use weapons to fight against weapons.

Though it seems we've drifted off the topic of Ron Paul a bit here, I think one thing is obvious. If you are going to vote for Ron Paul and agree with his foreign policy, you'd have to say the US was has been consistently wrong in it's foreign policy for at least the last half century, and probably more.