Forums - Politics Discussion - Ron Paul did something amazing last night

Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:

I don't see why Iran would be a big reason.

Obama seems like he's just as willing to go to war vs Iran as any republican candidate is.

Also, attacking Iran isn't quite as unpopular as you'd think.

"However, asked if the U.S. should take military action if sanctions against Iran to prevent its nuclear weapons program proved to be unsuccessful, 50 percent voted in favor of using military force."

All the Republican candidates (apart from Paul) are saying that America should have attacked Iran over the drone which they lost while spying on them.

Doesn't matter if it's popular, invading Iran would be rather stupid, especially when there is a decent chance the pro-democracy movement in Iran could take over when the next election is rigged.

I never said it'd be smart to invade Iran.  Or even go to war with Iran, which isn't the same thing as invading it.


I was just saying that Obama (who hasn't gone to war with Iran over the drone) is less of a warmonger than most of the Republican field who say that he should have.

You have to remember those Republicans who have been calling more more aggressive actions are just doing that because they are either on the campaign trail or not in power or both and the consequences of what they are saying is small. As President they would have a lot of options to weigh up before committing to any actions and must accept any potential consequences from the resulting fallout. And as Kaz has correctly pointed out Obama has sharply escalated the 'war on terror'.  Bush Jr may have had suspects kidnapped and interrogated using 'enhanced' interrogation techniques (i.e torture) but Obama doesn't even bother with that. He'd just not take any chances and send it in a drone strike which has killed way more civilians than suspected millitants.



Around the Network
scat398 said:

Last night at the Iowa debate, Ron Paul actually made the case for why he should be the next president of the United States and why he is the only republican candidate that can beat Barack Obama, and today on CNN he is getting hammered for it.

Ron Paul actually explained to the people of this country that war against Iran is an insane concept.  Michelle Bachman and the moderator's tried to call his position "dangerous".  The "dangerous" position that Ron Paul of course is endorsing is the ridiculous concept that Iran should be allowed to govern itself without foreign countries trying to dictate and impose their will on them. 

Now I'm no fan of Iran or any of these freak show middle east countries, but jesus christ back off allready.  Iran has zero interest in actually going to war with anyone, they would be anhilitated in days and they know this.  But for some reason the neo-conservative wing of the republican party has decided that war with Iran is the only option.

We have all seen the polls that show Obama beats both Gingrich and Romney in heads up fight (and let's face it Romney and Obama really aren't very different anyways).  But the reason neither of them will be able to beat Obama is they won't be able to pull the independent voters from Obama, but Ron Paul can.  Lot's of independent voters voted for Obama because he said we would end our wars and bring our troops home.  And for a lot of independent voters Obama has failed to live up to their expectations, but if the only choice is Obama vs Gingrich or Romney they'll stick with Obama because at least he is kind of doing it (it's kind of half assed but something is better than nothing). 

We need to wake up as republicans.  We are the party of individual freedoms and the party that believes that the true way to proseperity is the individual liberty of each and every man, because it is only when man has liberty that he is truly free.  Republicans don't believe in government control over the basic tasks in our lives and we don't believe our government should be enforcing it's beliefs on other countries. 

You may not believe in everything Ron Paul stands for but atleast he will be their to defend your right to say it.

Sorry to break it to you in case you haven't heard (the rather old) news but both the Democrats and Republicans are in the pockets of the Business Elite in particular large Corporations especially from the financial sector.  There is a strong correlation between who spends the most on the campaign trail and the eventual winner.



Kasz216 said:
ArnoldRimmer said:
Kasz216 said:

Obama seems like he's just as willing to go to war vs Iran as any republican candidate is.

How do you come to this conclusion?

I agree than when Obama talks publically about Iran and a possible war on Iran, he sounds pretty much the same as most republican candidates.

But my impression is that those words are mainly PR and that behind the curtain Obama is actually clearly against attacking Iran. For example, as far as I know, Obama's foreign policy is heavily influenced by america's geostrategical mastermind Brzezinski, and it is known that Brzezinski is strictly against attacking Iran, going as far as suggesting the USA should shoot down israeli warplanes if they were about to attack Iran.

I base it on his great expansion to the "Global War on Terror". 

I mean, he took the occasional breaching of Pakistan's soverinty and turned it into a hobby.

I mean look at this.  It's ridiculious

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan#2010


That it took Pakistan so long to publicly blow up at us is freaking amazing.

 

Obama clearly ain't afraid to bomb a country if something is going on within the country he doesn't like... let ALONE bomb a country ACTIVLY doing something we don't like.

 

I think this gets GREATLY understated because republicans are trying to convince their base that Obama isn't doing enough on the war on terror, when the reality is... he's GREATLY expanded what bush was doing.

 

To bring it back to Ron Paul.  He and Dennis Kusnich actually tried last year to get a vote to withrdaw from Pakistan.

I wonder if Dennis! would consider running as Vice President if Paul ran as an Independent.

Probably not, but it'd be cool since he seems likely to lose his district and doesn't want to fight a fellow Democrat for it.   (Which is a shame, I really like Dennis Kusnich.  Voted for him more then once.)

He's one of maybe.... 3 politicains who tells it how he see's it most of the time.  For example, suggesting Obama should be put on trial for an impeachment after invading Libya... one of the few people who stayed true to the "Bush should be impeached" point of view.

He and Paul would balance each other out nicely on some of the issues.

Ron Paul could either run as an Independent or choose a candidte to support and run as a V.P.  He needs to be in the white house one way or another.

But would he support Israel if they were attacked and needed our help to stay alive?



Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:

I don't see why Iran would be a big reason.

Obama seems like he's just as willing to go to war vs Iran as any republican candidate is.

Also, attacking Iran isn't quite as unpopular as you'd think.

"However, asked if the U.S. should take military action if sanctions against Iran to prevent its nuclear weapons program proved to be unsuccessful, 50 percent voted in favor of using military force."

All the Republican candidates (apart from Paul) are saying that America should have attacked Iran over the drone which they lost while spying on them.

Doesn't matter if it's popular, invading Iran would be rather stupid, especially when there is a decent chance the pro-democracy movement in Iran could take over when the next election is rigged.

I never said it'd be smart to invade Iran.  Or even go to war with Iran, which isn't the same thing as invading it.


I was just saying that Obama (who hasn't gone to war with Iran over the drone) is less of a warmonger than most of the Republican field who say that he should have.


I disagree in general because I see it as a case of actions speaking louder then words.

They're taking an oppurtunity to exagerate things to bash Obama because to a certain part of their base, the truth is... Obama is a better "national security" president then Bush ever was, because he's GREATLY expanded unilateral strikes against terrorists in countries like Afghanistan.

Additionally, none of the field to my knowledge actually suggested we should go to war vs Iran based off the drone.

What they DID argue was that Obama shouldn't of asked for the drone back, but instead demanded the drone back tying it to some action.  Which could mean military, or could mean sanctions or whatever else.



Coca-Cola said:
 

Ron Paul could either run as an Independent or choose a candidte to support and run as a V.P.  He needs to be in the white house one way or another.

But would he support Israel if they were attacked and needed our help to stay alive?

Nope.

I don't really see how such a situation could arise though.

I mean, outside like Turkey, I don't think any other nation could stand against them... and Turkey would be a fairly even fight.

Maybe an Iran led coalition but most other countries distrust Iran for not being Arab.  (cultural group wise, not race wise.)

And then there is the worst kept secret of the region.  Which is that Israel almost certaintly has nuclear weaons.

Like a bunch.

If Israel has to worry about anything as far as "threatening Israel" it's suitcase nukes and the like.

At least as far as violence is concerned.


It's biggest threat really is the rise of seculartism in the west leading to them losing their Jewish identity, leading to more open immigration/lower jewish birthrates, leading to a powerful arab muslim vote that votes for integration into Palestine.

Hence the big deal about recognition as a "Jewish State" and laws meant to enforce such a belief.



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:


I was just saying that Obama (who hasn't gone to war with Iran over the drone) is less of a warmonger than most of the Republican field who say that he should have.


I disagree in general because I see it as a case of actions speaking louder then words.

They're taking an oppurtunity to exagerate things to bash Obama because to a certain part of their base, the truth is... Obama is a better "national security" president then Bush ever was, because he's GREATLY expanded unilateral strikes against terrorists in countries like Afghanistan.

Additionally, none of the field to my knowledge actually suggested we should go to war vs Iran based off the drone.

What they DID argue was that Obama shouldn't of asked for the drone back, but instead demanded the drone back tying it to some action.  Which could mean military, or could mean sanctions or whatever else.

Rick Perry - "should have done was one of two things: We either destroy it, or we retrieve it. He took a third route, which was the worst and the weakest, and that is to do nothing."

You might be right about the rest of the field though.



I wish I was more involved in politics and all the different parties to make an educated opinion. This is a genuinely interesting thread :(



"Trick shot? The trick is NOT to get shot." - Lucian

SO is he the man or not?



           

I'll give you that, Ron Paul is certainly the most principled candidate in this field of political jokes.
I'm honestly wondering how people with so little knowledge of basic economics, foreign policy or history consider themselves to be serious candidates for president (!) of the US.

But Ron Paul has many extrem views, he's a liberterian for God's sake!

- He wants to eliminate the FED and various departments like education!
- He wants to get rid of student loans
- He doesn't believe in Climate Change (granted, the whole Republican Party hates science)
- He is against the Civil Rights Act!!!

Unlike the other candidates, he actually has some knowledge and I suppose you get what you vote for.
Nevertheless, no one can seriously vote for a liberterian (or any other candidates of this year's field)
if they believe in a world which is based on cooperation and human rights.



Nik24 said:
I'll give you that, Ron Paul is certainly the most principled candidate in this field of political jokes.
I'm honestly wondering how people with so little knowledge of basic economics, foreign policy or history consider themselves to be serious candidates for president (!) of the US.

But Ron Paul has many extrem views, he's a liberterian for God's sake!

- He wants to eliminate the FED and various departments like education!
- He wants to get rid of student loans
- He doesn't believe in Climate Change (granted, the whole Republican Party hates science)
- He is against the Civil Rights Act!!!

Unlike the other candidates, he actually has some knowledge and I suppose you get what you vote for.
Nevertheless, no one can seriously vote for a liberterian (or any other candidates of this year's field)
if they believe in a world which is based on cooperation and human rights.


That's funny because that is exactly what Ron Paul believes in.