So let me wrap up then with one of the most unholy statements I've ever made...
Thank heavens for Ron Paul. Of all the candidates running for US president in the spring of 2007, Ron Paul has clearly done more than the rest of them put together to inject serious talk about real issues. Whether you agree with his outlook on any given issue, he's got a serious and well considered viewpoint that bears consideration.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - chux03
So you'd vote for Hillary over Ron Paul? Now there's scruples for you!! That tells me everything I need to know about your politics, views, etc that can be summed up in 4 words: MORE OF THE SAME. While I am genuinely excited about Ron Paul and his views, I'd quit voting before I'd vote for Hillary OR Rudy. No thanks!!
77 - Dave Nalle
That someone like Dave, who seems to spew ad hominems and accusations of racism at anyone he disagrees with, is against Paul only makes me that much more favorable towards him. If anything, the fact that he's the only one going to bat for you says something about your article.
What gives you the idea that I'm against Paul? I'm for Paul in many ways, I just don't think he's a good choice as a presidential candidate if the GOP wants to win, and with Hillary in the mix I think the GOP winning is very important.
As for my attacks and accusations of racism, they are not ad hominems. They are based directly on statements which those users have made either on this thread or on others. You may not be familiar with the past behavior of some of the participants. You may not realize that Brodie is a self-acknowledged white supremacist. You may not have read Mike Green's insane religious rantings on amazon.com. That's why I mention these things, so you can put their statements in context.
Dave
78 - Nancy
Well written article/commentary. I even like Paul, & support several of his platforms. And as pointed out in the article, at least he HAS opinions & he voices them, which the others are too cautious/timid/cowardly to do. That they come off looking like a pack of the usual wimpy, say-anything-if-you'll-just-vote-for-me political maggots is a delightful extra, as it were; it certainly exposes who has convictions & who's just in it for the votes, as well as being entertainment for those of us cynics viewing all of them w/jaundiced eyes.
That said, I don't know I could support Paul, if only because of the loonies rallying around him,, such as the religious reich, neonazis, and other such maniacs. It's a pity a basically good candidate is attracting the nutcases, because it ends up scaring off those leery of the lunatic fringe on both ends of the scarf.
Anyway, he's worth a look, & more than worth his weight in gold at trying the other candidates of their dross.
79 - NH
I take offense to that last comment. I work with the campaign in NH and have never seen anyone who I would consider a 'loonie' (sic) or from the groups you mention...and we have some pretty independent people here..
I myself am a schoolteacher.. and work with all the GOP and conservative groups in the state.
80 - Nancy
If I'm wrong, I'm glad to hear it. I just go by what I read/hear/see.
81 - mike
Lets put it this way, there isn't a more qualified politician running for office than Ron Paul.
How you have derived Ron Paul as a non-aggressive person and not a military leader is mind boggling. He has said time and time again he is not against war but he is against going to war on whims.
He is on the front lines defending your civil rights against people who are allowing the economy to be turned into an energy/military house of cards ran by a private company, the Federal Reserve.
He is trying to point out to the American people to wake up and use their voting power to stop corruption before its too late and to help incite future americans that have an ear to hear to take back their rights.
So to put it bluntly if you think Hilary is the best candidate then I must say this article has failed. She will do nothing to turn the country around except slow ease our troops from the front lines of Iraq ( you know the neighborhoods and market places ) to the military bases 20 miles away from the front lines so the media can burry our involvement to our eyes. They will become the bases that will be similar to the japanese and germany locations around the world.
You know this, and I know this. Being American carries the burden that we take care of ourselves before we take care of others.
82 - MBD
It would be worthwhile to see Hillary Clinton in a one-on-one debate with Ron Paul.
I don't see how she could come out ahead.
83 - Mark
Great website!
Early this morning I created a poll on EBay Match up. Ron Paul vs Rudy Giuliani. You must be a EBay member to participate.
Please stop by the link to show your support. Thank you for your time in reading this message. Pass this on!
84 - Richard Brodie
Nancy, you say: "I don't know I could support Paul."
Yet you describe all the others as "cautious/timid/cowardly ... they come off looking like a pack of the usual wimpy, say-anything-if-you'll-just-vote-for-me political maggots."
Al has chosen Hillary, from among this usavory lot, to prefer over Paul. So which one would you pick?
And just one more question. If the phone polls can be trusted, someone like Giuliani has 30 times more supporters at this point than Paul does. So how do you know that his supporters do not include 30 times as many "loonies"?
85 - Nancy
I don't. If you've read any of my other comments on other threads, you'll see I despise all of them, left & right. Talk about quandries.
86 - Dave Nalle
I take offense to that last comment. I work with the campaign in NH and have never seen anyone who I would consider a 'loonie' (sic) or from the groups you mention...and we have some pretty independent people here..
New Hampshire has a LOT of libertarians in it - normal, sane libertarians and liberty republicans - they likely outweight any loonies you might encounter. The loonies referred to in a number of the comments here are just those who've shown up commenting on this thread.
It's a peculiar reality that when you post about Paul on the internet you find people who you thought were dangerous crazies suddenly coming to your support. It can be disturbing.
Lets put it this way, there isn't a more qualified politician running for office than Ron Paul.
That's actually not true. Bill Richardson is the most qualified candidate running. That doesn't mean I support him, but he's uniquely well qualified. Paul's actual experience is limited to the House of Representatives, which usually isn't a good base for the skills a president needs.
How you have derived Ron Paul as a non-aggressive person and not a military leader is mind boggling. He has said time and time again he is not against war but he is against going to war on whims.
Plus (just to make MCH happy) Paul did serve in the military as a doctor. As an OBGYN I kind of wonder what they had him doing...
He is on the front lines defending your civil rights against people who are allowing the economy to be turned into an energy/military house of cards ran by a private company, the Federal Reserve.
LOL, that train left the station in the 1930s.
He is trying to point out to the American people to wake up and use their voting power to stop corruption before its too late and to help incite future americans that have an ear to hear to take back their rights.
Which is what he's best at. And why I think his campaign is more important than actually getting him elected because it gives him a platform. As far as actually doing good, I think the key thing is to make sure he doesn't lose his house seat, because we need him in congress.
One of the big negatives of his campaign is that the same big-money/big-government republicans who tried to defeat him last year are going to try to take advantage while he's running for president and kick him out of congress in the primary.
So to put it bluntly if you think Hilary is the best candidate then I must say this article has failed.
That's not actually what he said. He said if it was a choice between Paul and Clinton he'd vote for Hillary. I suspect he actually supports someone else altogether if given his first choice.
She will do nothing to turn the country around
Oh, she'd turn the country around. Right now we're sort of cruising down a middle course and could turn for the better or worse. Paul or Giuliani would turn us towards a better course. Hillary would take us sharply in a worse direction.
You know this, and I know this. Being American carries the burden that we take care of ourselves before we take care of others.
And one of the big problems I have with Paul is that I think he shares this simplistic reasoning with you. I don't think he understands that to take care of our interests it's sometimes necessary to deal with others needs as well - for example by having an actual foreign policy.
dave
87 - Nancy
Rudy vs Hillary - I don't see it either. But it sure would be fun. So would the guy from Alaska & Paul vs just about anybody else.
88 - Todd Vouglas
At first I was very supportive of this article but then the correlation between Ron Paul's limited statement and engagement with Guiliani and the potential spine-less action of Paul as president. Could America not have toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan then LEFT?? Or once we had toppled the Iraqi government and captured Saddam gone home?? Why is it prudent to stay in these countries forever? Japan, Germany, Korea, Cuba etc, etc. America does not need to project imperialism thru its military! We can protect our interests by having a strong financial and industrious country with a military that can be projected throughout the world with the support of countries we share trade, friendship and common defense. Dr. Paul is not a simpleton, he believes America should come FIRST not blind greed. Go ahead vote for Hilary, a vote for the further dismantling of a once great republic!
89 - MBD
“Bill Richardson is the most qualified candidate running…. he's uniquely well qualified. “
The foremost and unique qualification to be president is to be able to read the Constitution and adhere to it. Everything else is secondary.
“Paul's actual experience is limited to the House of Representatives, which usually isn't a good base for the skills a president needs.”
“Usually… good” … bland words with no real meaning.
The job of president is generally OJT. What is needed is someone capable of making smart decisions that are in the interest of the American people, not for the moneyed special interests.
“Paul did serve in the military as a doctor. As an OBGYN I kind of wonder what they had him doing…”
As a military doctor he most likely just dispensed APC pills as anyone with military experience will attest.
“And one of the big problems I have with Paul is… I don't think he understands that to take care of our interests it's sometimes necessary to deal with others needs as well - for example by having an actual foreign policy.”
Like perpetuation of the “actual foreign policy” we have now?
My interpretation of what Ron Paul says is that his foreign policy would be to avoid making decisions that result in blowback and terrorism… no more empire building, no more hegemony, and no more trumped-up charges to take this country into preemptive wars.
90 - Lumpy
Maybe Paul has figured out how to be the 'magic libertarian' where he is all things to all people. For some he's the doctrinaire libertarian of his '88 campaign. For others he's the baby saving bible thumper of his texas campaigns and for others he's some sort of pacidist republocan kucinich. Guess what. Some of you are wrong.
91 - zingzing
even though paul is a hardliner on abortion and immigration, i actually agree with a really surprising amount of his positions. it's rather strange. and he actually seems to be fairly honest. and seems to care about the people that vote for him... and his constant defense of the constitution, even if it is a little simple-minded, is a good thing...
i have to wonder what's hiding in the closet, because this just don't seem right... i mean, he's a republican! from texas! i don't see myself voting for him, but i wouldn't be too terribly upset if he won the election. he seems sensible, which is a rarity these days.
92 - MBD
"his constant defense of the constitution, even if it is a little simple-minded..."
Simple-minded?
What is that you want?
Do you want less defense of the Constitution?
Where would you like that to start?
93 - zingzing
"Simple-minded? What is that you want?"
i'm just saying he gets away with voting a certain way by defending as "protecting the constitution." i mean, he has gone back on his word at least once by voting that the federal government can ban certain types of abortion (which he believes should be left up to the states)... but in other cases, he's voted against things that would do no harm just because he thinks that the federal government has no constitutional mandate to do such things. sometimes that is good... sometimes, not so much. it's a bit of a hard line to take, and i'm not sure that "the constitution does specifically state that the federal government can do this" is a bit simple-minded, that's all. on the other side of the coin, saying that "the constitution does specifically state that the federal government can do this" could often be a wonderful thing.
i don't want less defense of the constitution, but i also don't want someone this unflexible (noting that he did break his own rule at least once) as the most powerful person in the land.
94 - zingzing
i meant, "i'm not sure that 'the constitution does specifically state that the federal government can do this' ISN'T a bit simple-minded," even if that is a double negative... i was typing too fast.
95 - zingzing
and it's "inflexible," isn't it?
96 - Al Barger
Todd Vouglas [comment 88] sez: Could America not have toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan then LEFT?? Or once we had toppled the Iraqi government and captured Saddam gone home?? Why is it prudent to stay in these countries forever?
I would be somewhat sympathetic to this view, though we're STILL dinking with the Taliban. But smacking down bad guys we generally do pretty well. It's the nation building part where we snag our bags. It's the compassion of the compassionate conservatives where we've gotten mired down.
Todd raises a decent counteroffer to current policy - but this is different than what Paul's saying. He was against going into Iraq at all. Thing is, Paul is so determinedly consistent as to de facto oppose anything that look like it could pass for adequate defense. One vote to authorize force in Afghanistan is inadequate to the task of the defense of our homes. They're still coming.
I could sympathize with an argument against having gone into Iraq. By rights, we probably should have been smashing hell out Iranian mullahs instead. I'm open for alternate strategies - but they're going to have to be more than sit home and wait for them to hit US. That's pretty much what I'm hearing from Paul.
By the way folks, I have no intention of voting for Hillary - though I suppose I opened myself up to the charge. At this point, I'd say that Giuliani hits my gag reflex less often than any other candidate. I picked Hillary as the point of comparison precisely because she'd be someone I'd especially NOT want as POTUS. When I said I preferred even the Hildebeast to President Paul, that's meant as an expression of high discontent with Paul - not support for Hillary.
97 - MBD
"i also don't want someone this unflexible (noting that he did break his own rule at least once) as the most powerful person in the land."
Who would you prefer to have?
98 - zingzing
haven't made up my mind yet. gonna wait and see what's out there. still a long time until the election, isn't it?
99 - MBD
“I'm open for alternate strategies - but they're going to have to be more than sit home and wait for them to hit US. That's pretty much what I'm hearing from Paul.”
Check your hearing aid.
Paul is saying is that if we sit home and wait for them to hit the US they will have no reason to come.
That's pretty much what I'm hearing from Paul with my hearing aid turned on.
100 - MBD
"haven't made up my mind yet. gonna wait and see what's out there. still a long time until the election, isn't it?"
The question was who would you prefer to have -- not who you expect to vote for 18 months from now.
To simplify it, who would you vote for today?
101 - zingzing
paul's reasoning on 9/11 is sound: they attacked us because we attacked them. it's as simple as that. "they hate our freedom" is just fucking dumb.
and if we weren't over there fucking around, and hadn't been since the end of ww2, then we wouldn't be in this (exact) mess right now.
but we are in this mess... and radical islam is pissed... so it's pretty certain that we can't leave and we can't stay... we're fucked either way. and it's pretty hard to have diplomatic relations with underground terrorists. i'm not saying the world is coming to an end, but we certainly have completely fucked up world politics, haven't we? (by "we" i mean "mankind..." but more specifically, "old white man-kind...")
102 - zingzing
"To simplify it, who would you vote for today?"
today... i wish al gore were running. or that that dennis k. guy had a chance of winning. but i simply don't know enough about all the candidates to say. i know there are things about clinton i don't like (too pushy), and things about obama i don't like (too inexperienced), and things about edwards i don't like (i grew up in n.c....), and things i don't like about rudy (too self-congratulating and fake--a politician through and through), and all the other republicans (too republican)...
i simply don't know yet. i'm hoping to be better informed by the time of the primaries... which are coming soon this time, yeah?
103 - Jason
Responding to Al Barger, comment 65, I am comfortable with being associated with the nut cases, racists, nazis, murderers, sheep lovers, and whoever else you throw into the mix as a potential Ron Paul supporter.
I am supporting Ron Paul as a presidential candidate. I am not supporting his supporters.
Do you choose not to be an American because of these same people who are not only Ron Paul supporters but also citizens of our great nation?
Are you comfortable with basing your vote for the president on the perceived entourage of the candidate in a sort of super superficial upgrade over the usual beauty and popularity contest format of american politics?
I don't mean to sound harsh because I understand that you are sympathetic to the cause. However, you have to admit it's an odd obstacle to voting for the greatest presidential candidate in history. Sorry, I slipped into Ron Paul induced lunacy for a moment.
104 - Jason
Another point just occurred to me although a moment too late for my previous post.
Pick a candidate.
If your candidate were to receive a unanimous vote for the presidency would you be comfortable with being associated with these people?
105 - Richard Brodie
Why are there so few debates? The justification for wanting to eliminate contenders this early is so that more time can be given to the big name favorites. So just have more debates! Instead of half a dozen before the Primaries, have one every other week, each time focusing on a single issue.
Why will this not happen? Because without an excuse to drop someone like Ron Paul, who has seriously challenging viewpoints, they run the risk that their annointed "first tier" candidates might be made to look stupid.
106 - Al Barger
Jason, I wrote this story without having been around much Ron Paul chat on the net. My main experience before this with Paul supporters would be through my involvement in the Libertarian Party. They are a credit to Paul.
But you can see that some of these people here are a couple of freedom fries short of a full happy meal. I wouldn't go so far as to deduce guilt by association, but in picking a POTUS I might be inclined to at least a little suspicion by association.
But my problems with Paul are not primarily his supporters, but the candidate's distinct lack of credibility on issues of national defense. That's the main #1 thing we hire a president to do. If I'm not confident that he's willing and able to protect the country by force of arms, then he's not only not the greatest presidential candidate ever, he's not even qualified for the job.
107 - Richard Brodie
Al says: "They're still coming."
Indeed. I understand there are 6 million of them already here. In fact a leader of one of their "respectable" front organizations, CAIR, has said that he (Ibrahim Hooper, speaking for all Muslims, not just the terrorist fringe) wants to see the Koran replace the Constitution as the highest law in the United States of America.
Islam needs to be identified and recognized as a religion with a political component that is inimical to the most basic ideals and values of America. And this then needs to be used as the basis for establishing a Fair Arab Immigration Reciprocity (FAIR). Namely that the number of Muslims allowed to immigrate in any given year shall be no greater than the number of non-Muslim Americans who emigrated in the previous year to countries in the Middle Eastern Muslim homeland.
108 - Lumpy
"Paul is saying is that if we sit home and wait for them to hit the US they will have no reason to come."
then his ignorance of Islam and the world situation is so great that it ought to disqualify him entirely as a presidential candidate.
I say make him secretary of education, interior and homeland security and let him dismantle those three agencies once and for all.
109 - MBD
“then his ignorance of Islam and the world situation is so great that it ought to disqualify him entirely as a presidential candidate.”
Your ignorance of blowback is what is so great.
Ask yourself why certain countries are singled out and others are not.
110 - Marc Scott Emery
Al Barger now concedes that Rudy Giuliani makes him gag the least of all the front runners, and that he would only vote for Hillary Clinton if Ron Paul were the Republican opponent to Hillary.
So for Al Barger its uber-fascist one-note Giuliani or Hillary Clinton before Ron Paul for President, eh?
That's a pretty spectacular obsession with mass military superiority you have over all other issues combined, because even you concede Paul's position is superior to Clinton or Giuliani in every other way but 'national defence'.
Weird myopia you have Al.
111 - MBD
#107... “If I'm not confident that he's willing and able to protect the country by force of arms, then he's not only not the greatest presidential candidate ever, he's not even qualified for the job.”
Of course.
The problem is that there is no basis for your speculation that he's not willing and able to protect the country by force of arms,
Do you have one?
112 - eopardPM
As a radical libertarian, I do understand what you are saying about the 'loonies' who seem to come out of the woodwork and support Ron Paul. As I read through the comments, I cheered for the logical and coherent arguments made by obviously thoughtful people - people I would be proud to stand next to as we voted in Ron Paul. But every time I came across one of those 'loonies', I cringed - I felt as if I should somehow respond and either (a) apologize for them, or, (b) somehow lend some credibility to their posts. I also felt a bit of fear... it will be these folks that will be the undoing of Ron Paul.
. I do it because... I have to - his thoughts mimic my own, his concerns are mine, his honesty is what I would aspire to.
I was wrong on all counts. They require nor desire anything like an apology from me, they are stating their views from their perspective and NOT mine, nor Ron Paul's. Mostly they sound rather immature, and probably be treated as such - dismissed while the grown-ups get on with actual debate. I now think of two things regarding them: a vocal minority part of supporters who do not represent Ron Paul or his campaign, and, I am glad for their vote because in all their hootin' and hollerin', they are not killing folks, or harming them (these folks probably only leave their dark caves to grab some Cheetos at 7-11, avoiding contact with most folks along the way), and the ONE thing that actually will impact anything... is that they will throw down their precious vote check mark for the candidate I also desire. So, enough with the 'loonies', don't let them distract you from the issues or the candidate.
I do not really think Ron will win the primaries, let alone the presidency - but I do hope. I hope enough to actually participate in the campaign through donations and volunteerism
Foreign Policy:
Would being non-interventionist garner more or less hatred/violence/terrorism against the US?
I have to say that it would take an extraordinary effort in cognitive discordance to actually believe that such a policy would garner more of any of these.
Are people(mostly Muslims, apparently) currently hating us and threatening to damage us?
Yup. And these folks need to be prevented from entering this country, stopped or killed before they can attack in any manner. These folks probably will not be appeased in any manner, they have fallen over the edge of reason (maybe not, but at this point they are benefiting too much by inciting violence to stop doing it), and death or some serious 'de-fanging' will be required to deal with them. Luckily, their numbers are still very small - but are growing daily.
Does occupying Iraq with 140,000 military personnel achieve this goal?
Yes and No. We are killing them, sure, but at the same time we are strengthening them and swelling their ranks. It is impossible to deploy such a large force without incurring both 'blowback' and a large amount of civilian collateral damage, which in turn becomes more blowback. I think the net result is negative, and so agree with Rep. Paul that we should withdraw, as speedily as possible.
What to do against these crazies then?
Prevent them from entering the country - number 1 priority. This is also Ron's position. Seek out and kill any who have elevated their anger into violence - not with 'armies', but with highly specialized and trained teams, fight them THEIR way but with OUR technology and money. This minimizes blow back, minimizes collateral damage, but still achieves objective: protecting the country.
I do have a question for you. What is the absolute worst that could happen in our fight against these terrorists? a nuclear weapon detonation in a city? Bombings of cafes and nightclubs like Israel? Destruction of the country? Seriously, please try and quantify the danger these folks pose. As scary as these crazies are, they are also severely limited in number and ability.
113 - Dave Nalle
Some excellent points there.
I suppose the crazies supporting Paul are no worse than the radical socialists who support Kucinich or the evangelical end of the world nutcases who support Brownback.
As for foreign policy, what you're not considering is that even if we go strictly non-interventionist, that will have no impact on how much we're hated, because we're hated for who we are at least as much as what we do. And when it comes to what we do, our business practices are part of it, and Paul isn't going to shut down US international trade, is he?
That being the case we'll still be considered economic exploiters, but we will no longer be feared or respected along with it. Plus our business interests will be enormously more vulnerable to attack overseas and no amount of border enforcement is going to help that.
I see a Ron Paul presidency as enormously profitable for the mercenaries. Get your KBR stock now while it's cheap.
Dave
114 - NH
Ah so just because the communist party USA supports Hillary, or will likely, do you think her millions of supporters will let that bother them? This is a free country and I don't care if chickens and cows support Ron...
Ron is not a pacifist, so get that out of your squash.
115 - the oak
Al, I can tell you several things about Ron Paul's phylosophy that would make us safer and stronger!!!
1. reality in policy- over all the others, he has read the CIA reports
2. second ammendment - he has often said that if we allowed good citizens their gun rights 9-11 would've never happened
3. golden rule - if we minded our own damned business, others would have no reason to attack us.
4. spending cuts - small government is strong government. Paul is like Reagan in believing that you talk softly and carry a big stick. If we are economically strong, no one wants to their economy.
5. no foreign aid - we fund just about every Middle Eastern country right now. Maybe they wont be able to afford to bomb us if we keep our money to ourselves.
6. Getting out of the UN - the US enforcing UN sanctions has gotten us into just about every war since Korea, including Iraq. If Paul was president the UN would have NO enforcement agency.
So once again Al, Ron Paul is right.
He was right about the terror attacks.
He was right about Iraq.
He is right on a strong defense.
He's right about the economy.
He is the only guy in DC that has a brain because he never caves in to the corporate lobby that help get those other guys elected time after time.
Vote Ron Paul for a strong, free America!!!
116 - Dr Dreadful
Ibrahim Hooper, speaking for all Muslims, not just the terrorist fringe
Well yes, of course, I read in the paper where, before Mr Hooper made his remarks, they took a worldwide poll of Muslims who unanimously approved him to be their spokesman. [sarcasm off]
Perhaps I'm being harsh. Your reputation precedes you, Mr Brodie, so I realize that the real world is not your forte.
117 - Clavos
"2. second ammendment (sic) - he has often said that if we allowed good citizens their gun rights 9-11 would've never happened"
That makes no sense.
We DO allow "good" (and bad) citizens their "gun rights," and yet 9/11 DID happen.
118 - Al Barger
The Oak [comment 115] Thank you for listing some specific arguments to address, but I'm less than impressed.
1. reality in policy- over all the others, he has read the CIA reports
First off, I highly doubt that he's read CIA reports that no one else has. More importantly, proclaiming that he favors "reality in policy" is a broad claim, not an argument. Moreover, this claim is utterly contradicted by
3. golden rule - if we minded our own damned business, others would have no reason to attack us.
They're not Christians and they don't believe in the Golden Rule - and they most certainly do not act on it. This claim right here is utterly delusional, and Paul pretty much places his whole, entire foreign policy stock on this absolutely untrue idea.
We're supposed to have faith that if we show weakness and withdraw militarily from not just Iraq but the whole world, the likes of Al Qaeda will figure that we're not such bad folks after all. That's not being realistic, but the opposite. That's the main central candyland scenario that Paul clings to in clear defiance of reality in order to justify the whole Dr No approach to foreign policy.
This candyland wishful insistence that if we just back up and leave them alone they'll leave US alone is in fact the very opposite of the "strong defense" that you insist Paul supports. It takes a hell of a lot more than a general proclamation that you support a "strong defense."
2. second ammendment - he has often said that if we allowed good citizens their gun rights 9-11 would've never happened
Frankly, this statement is just dumb. I'm 100% pro-Second Amendment. Armed citizens would be real helpful at protecting themselves from street crime, but how exactly is it that crackers with shotguns would have stopped the 9/11 hijackers? Are you proposing actually having citizens carrying guns on commercial air flights? There are lots of little things that individual armed citizens can do, but not everything. Respecting people's rights to arm themselves is great, but it does not constitute a strong military defense. That right there is the main reason we have to have a government.
I'm more sympathetic to the last three arguments. Cutting spending and government authority generally is a great idea, though I don't see the direct connection to security. Indeed, being richer, freer and happier would just cause some of these folks to hate US more than they already do.
I'm not sure at this point about 100% NO foreign aid, but I'm sympathetic to the general idea. Surely we could cut out the money given to every crappy Middle East despot - and especially the Palestinians.
To end on a more positive note of agreement, I'm 100% behind you on point 6: US OUT OF THE UN. UN OUT OF THE US. They're far worse than worthless. The world would be a distinctly safer place without this bunch of jerks with a facade of authority running interference for every evil bastard on the planet - and doing it largely on OUR dime.
119 - Dr Dreadful
Exactly. What were people supposed to do - whip out their Colts and shoot down the planes before they hit the buildings?
Or did Oak mean if the passengers had been armed they could have stopped the hijackers? You know, there's a reason besides hijacking prevention that guns aren't allowed in aircraft cabins. Just you think about it a little more, Oak. You'll figure it out.
120 - Richard Brodie
I realize that the real world is not your forte.
And I realize that those of you who fancy yourselves as the "real world" guys are all in favor of welcoming in as many millions as possible of Mohammedans, LaRaza types, etc. whose goal is the demographic/ideological conquest of America.
By accepting the current state of things as the manifestation an unchallengeable "real world" you display a pathetic suicidal cowardice. Sorry to have to be so dreadfully harsh on you.
121 - bliffle
On 9/10/2001 Conventional Wisdom was to cooperate with airplane hijackers, but that changed suddenly during 9/11/2001 and the passengers of Flight 93 acted accordingly.
122 - Marlow
In an otherwise tolerable view of Paul's candidacy, Barger's article comes unglued when, at its end he favors the power lusting Hillary over the principled Paul. And why? Brcause, under Paul we'd be "too principled to protect ourselves".
Paraphrasing Giuliani, I've heard some pretty absurd things in my time. How Barger derives no defense from non-interventionism is the question. Here we have the US, mightiest military power in human history, with a military budget equal to, what is it, nearly the combined military budgets of the rest of the world, with 100's of military bases encircling the globe and Mr Barger frets that the US would be "eaten alive" if a Paul presidency were to cut back on this monsterously huge,bankrupting military and concomitant foreign policy.
Barger, in his final analysis, buys the rightwing nutjob case for interventionism - that US enemies are such "evil bastards" that the US must, apparently, kill them by the thousands in their homelands lest they come to the US and return the favor. Thus does Barger utterly discount Paul, the 9-11 Commission Report and even admissions from the likes of Wolfowitz that it is US intervention in the Mid-East that prompts "terrorist" attacks against the US.
Nor could anyone believe an out of context quote from Ayn Rand would preclude Paul from using military force to defend the US from real - as opposed to the current faked - threat of military attack against the US.
Bargers is a case for endless war because whether he will admit it or not the US is justifiably hated around the world for its arrogant meddling, its murder of civilians by the thousands, its propping up "friendly" dictators, its arrogatign unto itself the privilege of regime change and no doubt scores of offenses of which the public is kept in the dark. Given US behavior its just dumb luck the US hasn't been more viciously attacked than it has been by victims of US policy.
Will there be no "terrorist" attacks if the US adopted Paul's interventionism? There are no guarantees but it is a certainty terrorism will never end following the current policy that breeds anti-US hatred. I submit it is equally true that disentangling the US from foreign meddling will eliminate the incentive for attacks against the US.
So, rather than a "libertarian candyland", Paul offers the best way to get out of morass of endless war the Neocons have fashioned, and that Barger buys into.
123 - Al Barger
Marlow [comment 122] sez Mr Barger frets that the US would be "eaten alive" if a Paul presidency were to cut back on this monsterously huge,bankrupting military and concomitant foreign policy.
That's not quite true, and it seems that a lot of Paul supporters are having trouble with reading, cause that's not what I said. The problem seems to be that you've got such ideological blinders on that you can only see it as a simple this or that choice. Either you support a principled ie absolute "non-interventionist" foreign policy (about which definition we could argue) OR you support the whole enchilada of what we're doing now.
I would support neither. SOME of the our military activism appears to me to be absolutely necessary, because there really ARE people trying to kill us - and working to technologically leverage their way into doing it far more spectacularly.
Waiting till they get here ain't going to get it. Nor is counting 100% on a few tactical special ops forces to surgically deal with the problem going to get it, not with massive state sponsorship of terror in Iran, for example. And sending special ops into sovereign nations is an act of war too.
Which isn't to say that we should not cut back on a lot of our involvements. SOME of them probably cost more and provoke more than they help, and do tie our hands from having the resources to protect ourselves.
I could imagine US getting a good effect with some from column A and some from column B. For example, perhaps President Giuliani will find it necessary to simply goddam destroy the Iranian regime and smash up as much of their nuclear program as we can locate. Right while we're doing that would be a perfect time to announce that we're, say, closing down all our bases in Western Europe and bringing those troops home - or re-deploying them to Iran where they're actually needed.
Or perhaps not. It'd be great if we don't have to end up in Iran. But just categorically and inflexibly ruling that out on "principle" would seem to be a pretty clear recipe for disaster. And taking the possibility of such action off the table seems to me likely only embolden the bad guys and ultimately make US more likely to end up in a full scale war - and with nuclear armed mullahs at that.
But at least we'll be consistent with our all-important frickin' "principles."
124 - Richard Brodie
Dear President Ahmadinejad,
As the newly elected President of the United States of America I wish to extend, on behalf of the American people, a hand of friendship to you and the great people of the nation of Iran. I offer you my sincere apologies for the reprehensible, belligerent policies of the outgoing American government toward the Islamic world in general, and toward your country in particular. I am bringing our troops home immediately, and henceforth the United States will cease attempting to remold Middle Eastern countries, or any other sovereign countries, in its own image.
From this day we shall respect the right of all nations to determine their own destinies, their own forms of government, and their own institutions, asking only that such respect be reciprocated. Our government will not be providing aid of any kind, neither military nor "humanitarian", to any other countries, for such aid always implies some obligation, and is thus a form of the type of controlling intervention that leads to resentment, corruption, tensions, and ultimately conflict.
Nevertheless, please be assured that my administration will not attempt to interfere with trade between private businesses in both of our countries. Consonant with our preferred system of limited government and free enterprise, American business concerns, while they will not be allowed to deal with other governments, will be perfectly free to deal with the private business concerns of other nations. In particular, private Iranian nuclear energy firms will be free to do business with American suppliers of the technology and materials that might be needed to help your country develop the kind of a modern nuclear energy capability needed to to enhance the prosperity and living standards of the Iranian people.
May a new era begin - one of peaceful mutual friendship and respect between the peoples of America and Iran.
Sincerely,
Ron Paul, President of the United States of America
125 - Al Barger
When I read Mr Brodie's comment 124 [his proposed President Paul letter to Iran], I thought he was being sarcastic. I had to look up the thread to make sure he was a Paul supporter.
Particularly, his big finish struck me as amazingly, utterly foolish.
Nevertheless, please be assured that my administration will not attempt to interfere with trade between private businesses in both of our countries. Consonant with our preferred system of limited government and free enterprise, American business concerns, while they will not be allowed to deal with other governments, will be perfectly free to deal with the private business concerns of other nations. In particular, private Iranian nuclear energy firms will be free to do business with American suppliers of the technology and materials that might be needed to help your country develop the kind of a modern nuclear energy capability needed to to enhance the prosperity and living standards of the Iranian people
Yeah, at that rate it'd take a matter of weeks before "private" Iranian businesses were engaging in their right of free enterprise with American businesses to buy themselves nuclear weapons.
Again, the right word for this scenario is "candyland." This would be just totally, incredibly 100% irresponsible. I definitely would not vote for the candidate who wanted to send that letter. I'd like to think that Ron Paul is more responsible than what is being represented for him here by his supporters - but I suspect not.