Thread: To the Ron Paul Campaign--Where do you Stand?

Originally Posted by BrightNail

The reason we were attacked and the reason we are hated is because of our international nation building philosophy. As noted, our sanctions in Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east, have resulted in the deaths of 100's of thousands of civilians... yes, think on that.

There's not much to "think on" since your assertions are completely and utterly without merit

1. The sanctions regime was instituted after the conclusion of the First Persian Gulf War, which-need I remind you-was initiated by the Hussein regime. They were enforced with the consent of the United Nations Security Council, of which the United States is but one member.

2. The amount of people who starved to death because of international sanctions is a subject of some dispute-although I'm glad that you boned up on this issue enough to invoke the sparkingly precise "hundreds of thousands" figure, good job there-but what is not subject to dispute is the fact that Saddam Hussein, with the connivance of an inherently corrupt U.N. bureaucracy and with the assistance of a multitude of avaricious foreign allies, diverted most of the funds that should have devoted to feeding his people to opulent palaces and sex orgies for his masochistic, demented heirs.

3. What "nation-building" philosophy would be that? Your contention is that containing Iraq somehow provoked the 9/11 massacre initiated by a Saudi terror kingpin living in Afghanistan so I can only assume that you believe this ill will existed prior to our second invasion of and subsequent occupation of Iraq. What "nation-building" were we doing in Iraq, which was not occupied at the time, which engendered such enmity, just out of curiosity?

Originally Posted by CostaMesaMan

First of all Bright...

I am not (as you call him) a Ghouliani fan. While you tout to be informed, unfortunately most Americans will not be when they go to the polls and will decide who they are voting for based upon what they hear in the debates and T.V. and Radio sound bites...as well as how they look!

I was simply stating that Paul has a big UPHILL run with many Americans simply because of his statement about 911 as well as his unfamiliarity at this point. While I can appreciate your "Paul activism" due to your vast research...please keep in mind, you are the exception rather than the rule. Unfortunately, as sad as this is...that is the way it is! How many times did you vote in the past not as informed as you are now? There are a lot of the "former us" voters in America than there are the present "informed us" voters who will be voting in 2008. Hopefully something will change that...

but I am just stating the obvious!

How sad and pathetic that Americans have become so ill informed

I have some disagreements with Paul - one being his "Yes" vote on continuing PNTR for China. I agree with him on far more issues, than I disagree with him on, however.

He has come out strongly against the SPP/NAU, which is inextricably linked to the illegal invasion.

Hunter is my first choice, then Tancredo, then Paul. I'd take Paul over Fred Thompson, in a heartbeat.

Originally Posted by girlygirl369

It sure is getting tiresome listening to people complain because Ron Paul is against our military on the border. For the 4th time today.......

OUR MILITARY IS FOR FOREIGN PURPOSES.........O N L Y.

DOMESTICATE (MEANING WITHIN THE U.S.) PROBLEMS WILL BE HANDLED BY THE NATIONAL GUARD.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RON PAUL WAS VOTING ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!!

I also checked H RES 365(2002) and HR 1885 (2001). People using these votes to discredit Paul, are really grasping at straws. Before accepting this info as gospel, check for yourself before passing this erroneous info on.

Foreign purposes only????

Boy, I don't understand that one?

The Posse Comitatus Act forbade the U.S. military being used for interior law enforcement duties. Unfortunately Bush 41 drove a hole through that provision by altering Posse Comitatus, to allow for the use of the U.S. military, in the "War on Drugs."

That's how the Federales were able to use military firepower against the Branch Davidians in Waco.

While I oppose the use of the U.S. military for interior law enforcement, the borders with Mexico and Canada are Federal areas, and I see nothing wrong with the U.S. military being stationed directly at the borders, to repel invaders, or in them acting strictly in support roles for law enforcement agencies, away from the immediate borders.

Originally Posted by Shapka

Originally Posted by BrightNail

The reason we were attacked and the reason we are hated is because of our international nation building philosophy. As noted, our sanctions in Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east, have resulted in the deaths of 100's of thousands of civilians... yes, think on that.

There's not much to "think on" since your assertions are completely and utterly without merit

1. The sanctions regime was instituted after the conclusion of the First Persian Gulf War, which-need I remind you-was initiated by the Hussein regime. They were enforced with the consent of the United Nations Security Council, of which the United States is but one member.

2. The amount of people who starved to death because of international sanctions is a subject of some dispute-although I'm glad that you boned up on this issue enough to invoke the sparkingly precise "hundreds of thousands" figure, good job there-but what is not subject to dispute is the fact that Saddam Hussein, with the connivance of an inherently corrupt U.N. bureaucracy and with the assistance of a multitude of avaricious foreign allies, diverted most of the funds that should have devoted to feeding his people to opulent palaces and sex orgies for his masochistic, demented heirs.

3. What "nation-building" philosophy would be that? Your contention is that containing Iraq somehow provoked the 9/11 massacre initiated by a Saudi terror kingpin living in Afghanistan so I can only assume that you believe this ill will existed prior to our second invasion of and subsequent occupation of Iraq. What "nation-building" were we doing in Iraq, which was not occupied at the time, which engendered such enmity, just out of curiosity?

The hatred for us from the ME goes back much farther than the Gulf War or sanctions. For younger people, it might be ancient history - but for some of us - it isn't.

We have been messing around in ME politics since the 50's. We have had CIA operatives over there doing 'things' since then.

We helped the bloody Shah attain the throne in Iran. He murdered many, many of his countrymen - yet he was our 'friend'.

We helped and supported Saddam - now no doubt about that. He murdered and tortured many of his countrymen. That was OK with us as long as he was our 'friend'.

We have military bases in Saudia Arabia - that is sacred soil to the Muslims and they resent it. Understand it or not - that's how it is.

We have supported Israel for all this time. Israel probably would not exist today without US support. However you might stand on that issue - that is the truth. However you might stand on that issue, the Muslims resent it.

We got ourselves involved in the Afghani war against Russian - right or wrong - we did. In doing so, we helped make a folk hero of Bin Laden. He was our 'friend' for a while.

WE have operated on the 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Your enemy is always your enemy - even if he is friendly to you - for a time - for a price. You will have to face him at some point in time.

Actually, I think our 'containment' of Saddam had little to do with 9/11 - consequently, I think Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Therefore, our invasion and occupation of Iraq is just another in a list of reason the ME people hate us.

Our problems didn't begin with Saddm's invasion of Kuwait and they won't end with our taking over Iraq, either. We have a very long, history in the ME.

I think Ron Paul would be more in favor of the individual states protecting their own borders rather than having it come from our federal government.

I'm new to this, so I'm just going by his stance in less government and more power to individual states.

Originally Posted by chloe24

I think Ron Paul would be more in favor of the individual states protecting their own borders rather than having it come from our federal government.

I'm new to this, so I'm just going by his stance in less government and more power to individual states.

Chloe24,

Defending our national borders, is one of the enumerated duties of the Federal government.

Overall, I like Paul's positions on smaller government.

Welcome, and happy posting!

Originally Posted by chloe24

I think Ron Paul would be more in favor of the individual states protecting their own borders rather than having it come from our federal government.

I'm new to this, so I'm just going by his stance in less government and more power to individual states.

Yes, it is an international border - and therefore, one of the few, very few, powers left to the federal government, by the consititution.

Also, when Texas became a state, the federal government promised to protect Texas from Mexico. The fact that the federal government didn't do that, was one of the reasons for Texas seceding -

That's one of my favorite 'Things ain't changed all that much' things.

Ron Paul voted 4 times against military on the border because IT IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

The MILITARY is for FOREIGN use only. DOMESTIC protection is by the NATIONAL GUARD (states militia).

There is too much misrepresentation of facts, i.e., above, being bandied about by those who favor another candidate over Ron Paul.