Dear Friends,
Hi! How are you? It’s great that you are out there making viral videos and throwing “Tea Parties” to raise money for your man, Ron Paul. It is outstanding that you are so invested in the coming election and that you’re willing to get behind a clear dark horse candidate like Dr. Ron Paul. I applaud you, I really do, for your passionate support and undying struggle to give the vast American voting public a better choice than, “a giant douche and a turd sandwich.” Hats off to you.
I understand your enthusiasm for Ron Paul. I really do and I think it’s great, truly. Much of what Ron Paul stands for is worth embracing and he makes many salient points in the debates, despite being painted as a Kucinich-like lunatic. I agree with Ron Paul on issues such as the economy and our ever sinking dollar, especially in the face of the rising euro. Certainly a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for restoring stability to the falling dollar. I agree with Ron Paul on his ideas about reducing government spending and the overall size of government. Surely a government that spends millions on a bridge to nowhere is one that is far out of control and apparently living on planet “Money Tree.” Now I disagree with Ron Paul on his isolationist foreign policy ideas and specifically his assertion that Iran is not a direct threat to the United States, while they are still the main financial and political support for the terrorist group Hezbollah, but that’s OK. This is America and we can be free to disagree.
Now do you see what I just did there friends…read more at http://pc-live.tv/2007/11/22/125/#more-125
Remember to tune in this Sunday at 10:00 AM on PC Live
75 users commented in " An Open Letter to Ron Paul Supporters "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackback“Now I disagree with Ron Paul on his isolationist foreign policy ideas and specifically his assertion that Iran is not a direct threat to the United States, while they are still the main financial and political support for the terrorist group Hezbollah, but that’s OK. This is America and we can be free to disagree.”
Response in Dr. Paul’s own words
“Last week I wrote about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.
But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?
I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none.” Washington similarly urged that we must, “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.”
Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,” and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?
It’s hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today’s more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.
It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.”
“Now I disagree with Ron Paul on his isolationist foreign policy ideas and specifically his assertion that Iran is not a direct threat to the United States, while they are still the main financial and political support for the terrorist group Hezbollah, but that’s OK”
When has Iran or Hezbollah ever directly threatened the US?
Apart from that… just a suggestion for you. Your use of the term “isolationist” in describing Ron Paul is a sure way to alienate his supporters. If you want to have a discussion, you need to drop the term, as it does not describe Paul’s position on foreign policy at all.
From Wikipedia:
The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing was a major incident on October 23, 1983, during the Lebanese Civil War. Two truck bombs struck separate buildings in Beirut housing U.S. and French members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon, killing hundreds of servicemen, the majority being U.S. Marines. The blasts led to the withdrawal of the international peacekeeping force from Lebanon, where they had been stationed since the Israeli 1982 invasion of Lebanon. “Islamic Jihad” took responsibility for the bombing, but that organization is thought to have been a nom de guerre for Hezbollah receiving help from the Islamic Republic of Iran…Along with the U.S. Embassy bombing, the barracks bombing prompted the Inman Report, a review of the security of U.S. facilities overseas for the U.S. Department of State.
In May 2003, in a case brought by the families of the 241 servicemen who were killed, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth declared that the Islamic Republic of Iran was responsible for the 1983 attack. Lamberth concluded that Hezbollah was formed under the auspices of the Iranian government, was completely reliant on Iran in 1983, and assisted Iranian Ministry of Information and Security agents in carrying out the operation.[18]
There is that isolationist word again. Stop misleading people.
There you go again…isolationist is not even in Ron’s vocabulary!
“Now I disagree with Ron Paul on his isolationist foreign policy ideas and specifically his assertion that Iran is not a direct threat to the United States, while they are still the main financial and political support for the terrorist group Hezbollah, but that’s OK. This is America and we can be free to disagree.
Now do you see what I just did there friends?”
Yes we do see what you did there. You couldn’t find anything specific to disagree with so you had to use incorrect terminology to confuse people.
Nonintervention or Non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. A similar phrase is “strategic independence”.
Isolationism is nonintervention combined with economic nationalism (protectionism). Most non-interventionists are not isolationists. Most, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson in the United States, favor nonintervention combined with free trade and free cultural exchange.
Ron Paul is NOT a isolationist as you so ignorantly claim. He is a non-interventionist.
Also, please do explain how Hezbollah is “a direct threat to the United States”, and not just some nusance to one of our entangled alliances. I’m really looking forward to this one.
It looks like your only two arguments against Paul are both faulty and based on ignorance. Could you stop with the anti-Paul rhetoric now?
Mark your examples show how Iran has sponsored terrorist orginizations who are working towards getting us out their countries internal affairs. Terrorists don’t hate freedom and that we are wealthy. Ruhollah Khomeini ran a campaign to attack the US for those reasons and only a small group of people rallied behind him for that effort and largely throughout the middle east no one cares that we are rich. Your examples prove Dr. Paul’s position in that those are examples of blowback from our current foreign policy. Those places were attacked because they represent our meddling in other countries affairs and those people do not want that.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:
1. Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
2. Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.
Last time I checked part 2 is not one of Ron Paul’s stances. So according to the definition, Isolationism is innacurate.
Its fine that you disagree with him on that issue. But the term “isolationist” refers to someone that is against free trade, free travel, and engaging dialogue with foreign nations and is pro economic protectionism. In terms of trade, the other candidates are a lot more isolationist than Ron Paul. Isolationism goes very strongly against Austrian economic theory, a school of thought that has had the most influence on Paul’s beliefs.
Mark,
How do YOU know that Iran is a threat? Besides hearing the repeated talking points from the Whitehouse and Fox “news.”?
LMAO!
This was just a lead in to a total hit piece. He continues that last sentence with:
“Now do you see what I just did there friends? I stated simply that I disagreed with one of Ron Paul’s positions and gave a reason for my disagreement. You’ll notice the absence of shrill language and name calling. You’ll also notice that I didn’t call him or anyone else a fascist, a communist, a fag, a Nazi, a racist, Britney Spears or insane in the membrane. You’ll notice that I didn’t insinuate that Ron Paul hates children or the poor. I didn’t even make a “Yo Momma” joke. That’s called having a rational discussion.”
And do you see what we have done here, friend? We pointed out where you were completely factually incorrect in your “reason for disagreement”. We did not call you a fascist, a communist, a fag, a Nazi, a racist, Britney Spears or insane in the membrane. You’ll notice that we didn’t insinuate that you hate children or the poor. We didn’t even make a “Yo Momma” joke. That’s called having a rational discussion.
YOU are the one being intellectually lazy and not willing to have rational discussion as the rest of your attack clearly shows.
What a waste of time.
Ron Paul’s policies better reflect trade and open relations with other countries than any other candidate out there. Our current foreign policy is isolationist, as we break the trust and ties with other countries more than ever before.
You have a responsibility to know the difference between ‘non-interventionist’ vs. ‘isolationist’. I see what you “did there” to your “friends”. You abused your power.
If he is not an isolationist please explain
# Voted against a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Chile[37]
# Voted against free trade with Singapore[38]
# Voted against free trade with Australia[39]
# Voted against CAFTA[40]
# Voted against the U.S.-Bahrain trade agreement[41]
# Voted against the Oman trade agreement[42]
# Voted against normal trade relations with Vietnam
wants to get out of the UN & WTO
I appreciate your limited understanding of the American people. Iran and Hez. are not a threat to the US. Nor are they a threat to Israel if the US would butt out and let them decide for themselves what to do with their country.
Now, unlike most people, I do not believe we need the Mideast Oil. I believe we should let the people of the mideast and every other country eat their oil and we will keep the FOOD. How is that for an answer.
Food for Oil would have a whole new meaning! I bet a bushel of corn or rice would equal a barrel of oil in a relative short amount of time! If we would just Butt Out of everyone else’s business and minded our own we would be better off!
Our politicians are the one’s at fault from the 9/11 incident to the elimination of our civil liberties, and the ignorant masses of this country should be ashamed although all they have to go by is the MSM which are nothing more than shills for the present government(Dems and Repugnant). We and the media are at fault! Time to stand up and be counted. I will vote for Ron Paul and the rest of the sheep be damned. I will never vote for the lesser of two evils again. MY VOTE COUNTS!!!
As far your comment on Hizbullah attacking the marine barracks in Beirut, it’s still not clear that they were the ones directly responsible. There has been no proven link. But let’s assume they did for the sake of argument, that falls directly under Ron Paul’s strongest argument, namely, that they attack us because we are over there.
The local population has the RIGHT to resist, just as the Iraqis are resisting us today. Just as Hizbullah (if it were Hizbullah) has the undisputable RIGHT to resist a foreign army on its soil whether it is the marines in 1983 or the Israelis in Southern Lebanon. Who are we kidding here?
How would we feel if 241 Chinese army units took up a base in Miami or San Francisco? Would we not regard it as occupation? Would we not feel that we have the right to resist? The marines in Lebanon were army units, not innocent civilians. When we choose to drag our army into a sovereign nation, they must be prepared to fight. This is not a joke. Just because we are the sole superpower, we think we have the right crush anyone we want anytime we please, walking into other people’s land like it’s our own. Who do we think we are? To act like the schoolyard bully and not expect a retaliation is ridiculous.
As I said every local population has a RIGHT to resist whether it’s Hizbullah in Lebanon, the Iraqis in Iraq or the Palestinians in the Occupied territories. If the ruling administration chooses to label a completely justified local resistance terrorism, they may succeed in convincing those feather-brained Americans who have Biblical images of glory etched into their heads. But, those are the real kooks and nut jobs as the anti-Paul media likes to say. Not us Ron Paul supporters who see Americans as well as other people across the globe commonly endowed with the God-given right of individual liberty and the pursuit of our own destiny.
“If he is not an isolationist please explain
# Voted against a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Chile[37]
# Voted against free trade with Singapore[38]
# Voted against free trade with Australia[39]
# Voted against CAFTA[40]
# Voted against the U.S.-Bahrain trade agreement[41]
# Voted against the Oman trade agreement[42]
# Voted against normal trade relations with Vietnam
wants to get out of the UN & WTO”
Chris,
No problem. Those are all MANAGED trade programs and are not really free trade. Just because you put free trade before them doesn’t change what the legislation was. The UN and the WTO are world bodies that interfer with our national sovereignty and goes against being a noninterventionist.
If you would put up specific vote bill numbers, I’m sure we can find you the reasoning why Paul voted as he did. Names of bill don’t count. Does ayone still believe the Patriot Act was about patriotism?
With regards to the comment about Ron Paul consistently voting against trade agreements, that’s completely consistent with his philosophy. It’s not the role of the federal government to come up with trade agreements on behalf of its citizens. These agreements benefit first and foremost wealthy corporations that have a vested interest in them, not the individual citizen. Ron Paul has consistently advocated free trade. Isolationsim is when you shut yourself up on the rest of the world and don’t deal with anybody. He wants us to deal with everybody (he just doesn’t want us interfering in other people’s business), but it’s not the role of government to cut back-door deals. Rather, we, the people should be free to come up with the best deals we can with other foreign traders based on the existing market dynamics of the time.
As far as non-interventionism, how would we like it if the Soviet Union was interfering in our local affairs seeking to have certain congressman or senators elected that might favor a more communist style of government. Do you think we would appreciate it? I think not. Do not do unto others what you would not have others do unto you.
As Dr. Paul always says, if we think democracy is so great, the best way to spread it is to act as a model for the rest of the world to emulate us. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. But, for us to go into other people’s backyards, interfere in their internal affairs, in the name of spreading democracy is disingenuous. We should learn to mind our own business and God knows we have plenty of problems to deal with right here at home.
“I disagree with Ron Paul on his isolationist foreign policy ideas and specifically his assertion that Iran is not a direct threat to the United States”
No one would expect an Israel-first believer to think any different.
Mark Radulich,
It is clear to me that you follow the neocon, Zionist, interventionist school of thought as clearly seen by the Presidential candidates you support like Giuliani and Huckabee. I have a strong hunch you believe the US should be doing Israel’s bidding in the Middle East, which if true, fantastically proves why Mr. Paul is the only candidate that has a chance to change America’s image in the world.
You have links to the hate-site Pajamas Media, a far right, anti-Muslim blog where every problem in the world can be attributed to one group of people: “the Muslims.”
You state, “Hezbollah directly attacked the US Marine barracks in 1983” quoting Wikipedia. While that may be true on the surface, you damn well omitted the circumstances surrounding the bombing.
1) The US military on the orders of President Reagan attacked the Lebanese coast, on behalf of Israel, angering ordinary Lebanese when US troops were hosted by Lebanon in Beirut.
2) By clearly aiding and abetting Israel in the 1982 Israel-Lebanon war, the US lost credibility as an “neutral, honest broker” and earned the contempt of many Lebanese who saw 2,000 people be butchered by Israel and its allies the Lebanese Phalanges militia in two refugee camps Sabra and Shatilla.
3) Ariel Sharon, marched his troops all the way to Beirut to drive out the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) because of personal rivalry and hatred he had for the corrupt leader Yasir Arafat.
4) In the ruins of the 1982 war and massacre, Hezbollah was formed by the Shi’a Lebanese to defend their interest against the US-Israel axis.
5) A foreign military target was bombed on Lebanese soil (not civilian) after the foreign army sided with Lebanon’s enemy, supplying it with state of the art, advanced weaponry… therefore it wasn’t an unprovoked “terrorist” attack by the Lebanese Hezbollah, rather a strategic attack to drive out the occupyier: US in 1983 and Israel in 2000.
So tell me, would the Marines have been bombed in Lebanon if we never had our troops there in Lebanon, meddled in the affairs of Middle Eastern politics, and playing favorites with Israel???
I think IT IS PRECISELY Mr. Paul’s strong foreign policy credentials that make him in my view the sole credible candidate, especially when it comes to America’s role in the world.
And you sir, Mr. RADULICH, need to do some objective reading…not some neocon, pro-Israel drivel a la NYPost, WSJ, NY DailyNews, US News and World Report, FoxNews, National Review, FrontPage, RealClear Politics, PajamasMedia, et. al….
Go to the “read more” link before posting.
We cannot let the often aggressive, childish message board culture be the downfall of Ron Paul. We have to be smarter than that and not give Paul’s opponents any justification for labeling his supporters as maniacs.
Don’t bother reading “read more” link.
It is just a giuliani supporter writing another hit-piece. It’s almost comical how you always find that PajamasMedia link on the anti-Pauler blogs.
Are you People serious Ron Paul ?? Your Vote counts yes it does but if you vote for Ron Paul it will count toward Hillary’s victory !! Ron Paul will not win ! Like it or not its the truth !! Get your Heads out of the sand support someone that has a Shot a this !! Use some common sense PLEASE !! if Hillary wins I blame stubborn Ron Paul supporters THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE HIS YEAR!!
Haha. Mark got owned.
“Are you People serious Ron Paul ?? Your Vote counts yes it does but if you vote for Ron Paul it will count toward Hillary’s victory !! Ron Paul will not win ! Like it or not its the truth !! Get your Heads out of the sand support someone that has a Shot a this !! Use some common sense PLEASE !! if Hillary wins I blame stubborn Ron Paul supporters THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE HIS YEAR!!”
What’s your problem man? Who are you to tell us how to vote? Do you have some crystal ball that has the outcome all figured out? Go vote for your Giuliani or Huckabee, and we’ll vote for Dr. Paul and may the best man win!
Besides, it’s not about voting for someone who has a shot at this because the MSM has conditioned us into thinking that way. It’s about voting our conscience. As someone much wiser said, “the lesser of two evils is still evil”.
delvis,
That was so convincing with all the exclamation points!!1!!1
If Hillary wins, you can blame the Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, McCain supporters, because that means Ron Paul didn’t get the nomination.
In fact, keep your dear friend Mark here on your blame list. It is they who are rejecting any chance of victory. Ron Paul has the support of the independents, the others do not.
Reject the independents and you lose.
Accept Ron Paul and it’s an easy Republican win.
Plain and simple.
Delvis says, “Are you People serious Ron Paul ?? Your Vote counts yes it does but if you vote for Ron Paul it will count toward Hillary’s victory !!”
Sir, I rather vote my conscience and have my candidate lose with integrity, honestly, and truth on his side…instead of having a candidate who wakes up every morning putting up his (Giuliani) or her (Hillary) wet finger in the air to see which way the political wind is blowing or crafting views according to lobbies (Israel) and interest groups.
Although it seems you are unaware of a RE-LOVE-TION going on throughout America by fellow Americans tired and angry of politicians-media axis to keep anyone they deem as “underdog” out of the Presidential race.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=awCKV4Lpx9c
Mandy, I couldn’t have agreed more with your response to “Chris” on isolationism.
But about the “read more” link (http://pc-live.tv/2007/11/22/125/#more-125)…The full article explains this guy’s position better, and you’ll see he has opinions on Rudy and Hillary, too. Discouraging people from looking at things from someone else’s perspective goes against what Ron Paul is teaching. We cannot fail to realize this when we speak with such bold assertion (and we are confident because we believe so strongly in Paul’s ideas).
I agree with Ron Paul very strongly, and it is hard to not feel like I’m “right” and everyone else just hasn’t seen the light, but talking down to people will only scare them away from our cause.
Let’s just, for argument’s sake, say that Mark Radulich and “Delvis” are total morons. Instead of telling them so, we should pretend they are not and simply use our superior intellect to persuade them to support Paul. Because, morons or not, they can still vote. Anyway, we should be focusing on convincing the average American, not other internet independents, to vote for Paul. Ron Paul will not get anywhere if his popularity is significant only on the Internets.
Ron Paul is not an isolationist. Please stop spreading this falsehood.
You don’t feel Ron Paul is credible because he doesn’t buy the line that Iran is an imminent threat. If you are truly worried about national security, how about the looming threat from China?
1. China holds more than 1 trillion dollars of our debt, and can cripple the economy overnight by dumping this debt onto world markets. Interest rates would soar, our dollar would be crushed, our ability to borrow to finance this charade of war and social programs terminated, and our economy sent into a tailspin for decades
2. China is about to have 30 million more marriage-aged men than women to marry them. This gender imbalance is due to their cultural preference for sons merged with availability of ultrasound in the 1980’s (and a proclivity for female infanticide). What’s an oppressive communist country to do with 30 million frustrated twenty-somethings?
3. China continues to showcase a willingness to test military boundaries with the US. Their recent successful anti-satellite test makes one wonder why they would need such a capability? Just yesterday China denied a scheduled USS aircraft carrier docking at a Hong Kong port, and we’ve seen incidents with Chinese submarines surfacing aggressively close to US Navy ships in recent months.
You’re assessing the case for Iran in a vacuum, asking us to disprove this administrations assertions on Iran’s evil intentions. The people of Iran are largely decent and educated, and Iran as a nation has little to gain by being aggressive against the United States or Israel. They would be destroyed in minutes. The neoconservative agenda in this region is driven more by a desire to exert US dominance, ultimately fueled by religious agendas and convictions. Syria will follow after Iran is toppled once again.
I applaud Ron Paul for questioning the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton view that we must dominate the Middle East. This policy against “terrorism” and “islamofascism” is shallow window dressing designed to appeal to a populace driven more by paranoia, fear, and “patriotism” than reason. If we purport to be concerned about national security, why aren’t we addressing the significantly greater threat from China? What can Iran possibly do to us by comparison?
Nafta is meant to eliminate tariffs and other barriers between the us, canada, and mexico. Now it does not eliminate all tariffs and does allow for a transition period.
As for the UN how exactly does that entangle us or neuter us.? We have a permanent seat on the security council with veto powers. They have no armed forces that can force us and we supply a great deal of their budget. What it does supply is a forum for talk and possibly cooperation.
My dear folks, I believe you’re missing the point of this article, but you are helping to make his point.
The author stated he disagreed with one of Paul’s ideas, not because he wanted to debate it, but because he wanted to prove that Paul’s supporters would attack him with over-bearing tones and pompous wording. THE POINT IS THAT EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT, IT WILL NOT DO ANY GOOD TO BE AN ASS. Think before you post, and please read the full article.
Ron Paul should be a point of unity for people like us, not division.
And as long as we are bringing up Washington, look at Jay’s Treaty
Both sides achieved many objectives. The British agreed to vacate the six western forts by June 1796 (which was done), and to compensate American ship owners (the British paid $10,345,200 by 1802).[4] In return, the United States gave most favored nation trading status to Britain, and acquiesced in British anti-French maritime policies. The United States guaranteed the payment of private prewar debts owed by Americans to British merchants that could not be collected in U.S. courts (the U.S. paid £600,000 in 1802). Two joint boundary commissions were set up to establish correctly the boundary line in the northeast (it agreed on the Saint Croix River) and in the northwest (this one never met). Jay, a strong opponent of slavery, dropped the issue of compensation for slaves, which angered Southern slaveowners. Jay was unsuccessful in negotiating an end to the impressment of American sailors into the Royal Navy, which later became one of the key issues that led to the War of 1812.
Seems like Washing gave up some of our sovernety to accomplish his goals.
wow, 29 comments and only Chris and Ron paul supporter got the point of the article, nice work
In the first paragraphs you were actually calling for a rational discussion.
Then it all abruptly stopped and a very tiresome petit-maitre possessed you, I had to read a never-ending, patriarchal lecture teaching those rascals how to behave. Bobby Everle revisited.
For a honest change of heart, why don’t you try to address unruly pupils outside the Ron Paul campus? Here’s a hint, Open Letter to: Edward Morrisey’s buccaneers, LGFBs, Mona Charen, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, … the list goes on and it’s real (doesn’t include lame posters).
Take your vitamins and do impart some sense of civility and decorum to that RRRRRRepublican class. Before you, or Bobby or any other colored coach tries again the “let me show you how it’s done” letter.
Medved is a Neocon, which is not an insult.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
“Paul is nuttier than Aunt Mabel’s pecan pie.” How is that helpful?, well, by Jove, is that Mark raising his hand? Now you tell uncle Morrisey.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010033.php
PS: Life goes on after election day.
Mark, sounds like you’re one ‘freedom fry’ short of a ‘happy meal’.
Mr. Radulich,
You said, “The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing was a major incident on October 23, 1983, during the Lebanese Civil War.”
Right there… in the first sentence, you already lost your argument. Under a Ron Paul administration, our troops would not have been in BEIRUT sticking our nose into the LEBANESE CIVIL WAR. What good did it do for the US for us to be there???
What really pisses me off is that you’re OK with sacrificing our soldiers lives to keep the status quo but YOU’VE NEVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY, you WIMP SOCIAL WORKER GLENN BECK WANNABE!!! I’ve served. About the first time a bullet wizzed past your head you’d be ready for a diaper change.
YOU MAKE ME FRIGGIN SICK!!!!!!!!!!
I suppose Mark’s point was that if you misrepresent someone’s position and then say you disagree with that person based on your misrepresentation, then that person’s supporters will try to help you better understand that person’s position. He has certainly proven his point very well!
Mark, if your going to use history of US intervention in the middle east, then you need to start from the beginning, and that would be 1953.
Even to assume we are over there for good intentions you cant forget this is a very religious area of the world and to think we can install already hated “western” democracy with no regard to 1300 years of Religious Ideology. I know if they were here trying to force Islam on the people here we would also be fighting them.
This isn’t as complicated as its made out to be, if we leave then they wont have anyone to attack. The reports coming out of Basra with the British is that since they left violence has dropped by 90%. So this whole argument is only being supported by the same people that said this would be a cake walk. The American people are suffering while a few corporate elites are getting rich.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,156377,00.html
Also let s not forget, while we are over there fighting they took a two month vacation during this last year. Not to mention this will cost every single American 12k to a total of 3.5 trillion dollars.
Chris,
“Nafta is meant to eliminate tariffs and other barriers between the us, canada, and mexico. Now it does not eliminate all tariffs and does allow for a transition period.”
Here is Ron Paul’s exact quote why he opposes it, “If we were interested in free trade, as the pretense is, you could initiate free trade in one small paragraph. This bill is over 1,000 pages, and it is merely a pretext for free trade. At the same time we talk about free trade, we badger China, and that is not free trade. I believe in free trade, but this is not free trade. This is regulated, managed trade for the benefit of special interests. That is why I oppose it.”
“As for the UN how exactly does that entangle us or neuter us? We have a permanent seat on the security council with veto powers. They have no armed forces that can force us and we supply a great deal of their budget. What it does supply is a forum for talk and possibly cooperation.”
We are in Iraq because of UN Resolutions. Didn’t you know that? Bush got approval from the UN to go to war, NOT the congress! That is a direct infringment on the US Constitution and absolutely interfers with our
sovereignty.
Here is a good article that explains more:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul82.html
OK?
Last time I checked … Beirut was not in the United States. Beirut is just another example of how bad the United States foriegn policy has been to date.
There is no point to get. Read the second page and you will find what a nasty individual this person is. He is merely trying to cause dissent and confusion within the ranks of Ron Paul’s support base. I will take all the supporters of Ron Paul and embrace them as fellow Patriots in this fight for the soul of our Nation, warts and all. LIBERTY! PROSPERITY! PEACE!
Meanwhile, Dr. Paul races past $9 million in fundraising for the 4Q. He’ll end up with $20-$25 million at the end of December, putting him easily in the lead of GOP candidates in fundraising.
Not bad for someone who is at “2%” in the polls and who’s support supposedly consists of anti-war kooks and leftists. I can’t wait for that crap-eating grin is wiped off Giuliani’s face.
Sure Iran is a threat to Israel, but you’re the one who doesn’t think they can defend themselfs. The threat also exists to the 160 nations we have troops in all around the world who are milking us dry. I just wish you neocons would get a clue and admit we cannot afford the empire anymore. Hats off to Mark for a civil discussion!
“Now I disagree with Ron Paul on his isolationist foreign policy”
Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist by way of the Founders advice.
Wow, people really are dense. Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. Kim Jong Il is an isolationist. Ron Paul wants to trade freely with nations and not become entangled in foreign alliances. Come on Mark…quit trying to prove us wrong. Join us.
For one thing, it’s not true that the free-market policy Paul promotes (trade with all, alliances with none) can be termed “isolationism.” In fact, the “managed” trade agreements and “closed-shop” arrangements that are being promoted by the neconservative establishment are more in line with isolationism, because the favored insiders pick and choose the partnership and terms of the contract based on military and political leverage. The WTO and IMF are unions, plain and simple, that keep some members “in” and others “out.” Another tactic, economic sanctions, serves to reinforce the isolationist foreign policies of a cabal of governments who do not want to enable a competitive and pro-engagement environment, and instead try to “isolate” others from doing business with the outcast nation. So the writer really needs to choose his words carefully.
What the writer really should say is that he does not like Paul’s policy of non-interventionism, which is an affront to the world-builders who apparently have superior abilities to design a world far better than a free market would allow. This is an amazing talent; but, it simply doesn’t conform to reality. The central planners in Moscow realized this years ago and gave up on it. The central planners in the neoconservative cabal are still learning.
As to threats from Iran, the writer has to be clear on what threats he is worried about. Is there an economic threat? That depends on how you define the Empire. If the Empire has to contain a large portion of the world’s oil (Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia), then I suppose it should feel threatened if Iran can readily do business with China and Russia, while members of the “isolationist” cabal within the Empire feel compelled to own it all. Should the U.S. feel militarily threatened? What, the world’s largest superpower, afraid of Iran? That’s been laughed off a long time ago. But, if the Empire decides it cannot have even one little nation taking business orders from other competitors, then such dissent must be considered a threat. So, yes, the Empire should feel threatened.
And, when I figure out what 1983 has to do with 2007, in terms of threats, then I’ll post on that. But I probably won’t be back.
“delvis Says:
Are you People serious Ron Paul ?? Your Vote counts yes it does but if you vote for Ron Paul it will count toward Hillary’s victory !! Ron Paul will not win ! ”
delvis you are… how you say… ignorant.
The Neo-Con Facsists have NO chance of beating the Democrats. They have over played their hand to the point that only their diehard fools (30%) still believe anything they say.
Ron Paul is the only chance for a Republican to win this next election. Things have gotten so bad that even a lot of Democrats realize that electing Hillary or Obama is going to be good enough.
Ron Paul is a “top tier” candidate. He has clearly surpassed John McCain. Ron Paul dominates in Straw Polls, Debate Polls, Fund Raising, Web Traffic and Grass Roots Networking. I have gathered the evidence and created a website to support this statement.
Please visit http://www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge for yourself.
agree or disagree with Paul’s positions, however, please spare his supporters your condescending postures . . . WE can get along just fine without your approval or disapproval.
If Ron Paul were the elected representative from Tel Aviv, it would be a reasonable expectation that he would support the necessary defense of Israel from its enemies, which could include Hezbolleh, Iranian Revolutionary Guards, The Syrian Army, Al_Queda, and others.
But Ron Paul is a Congressman from Texas, running to be President of the 50 United States of America, and as such, Hezbolleh, Fatah, Hamas, etc. are combatants in a middle eastern civil war that over-laps Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Kurdistan, Turkey, and has only been exacerbated by previous US gov’t policy that acts interventionisticly in those areas as well as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan. Additionally the current Bush policy is to finance or defend dictatorships or oligarchies in Pakistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia. Today in the UN, Afghanistan supported the government of Iran, a smack in the face to the US & Canadian policy of armed intervention in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia is going to lash a female victim of gang-rape 200 times for the bizarrest so-called”crime” imaginable. This is not a regime that should be recognized or subsidized by the US. Close down those US bases in Saudi Arabia, stop subsidizing the backward feudalism of Pakistan and Afghanistan, stop the destabilization of Iraq (get out now), and Israel can defend itself very adequately.
“isolationist” is a word like “denialist” it is not intended to reflect any sort of reality, it is intended to instill fear, uncertainty and doubt. In short, “isolationist” is an epithet, one that acquires its power through the ignorance of listeners and the repetition of its use. Politicians know that to repeat the same lie often enough is to create the truth, that is why it is necessary for Ron Paul supporters to continue to clarify loudly and repeatedly that Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, and to explain the difference. We can not let the Big Government truthers tar Paul with their “isolationist” brush.
Yes, I see what you did.
You used the words “Ron Paul”.
Bump goes the web traffic.
It’s ok. Everyone is doing it.
I encourage you, and other writers to take a close look at this so-called isolationism. It really is non-interventionism. What the US is doing now, is isolationist. Running around the planet, trying to make everyone become like “us”.
Ir’s costly..It makes NO friends. It isolates us.
Educate youself a little more on Ron Paul’s stance on the issues. You’re already coming around.
And think about this:
The First BIG MEDIA outlet that begins carrying non-biased, truthful news regarding the Ron Paul campaign will strike GOLD! you watch.
Respectfully yours,
J
I have one question and I think that this could be its own post or poll for many people.
If Ron Paul does not win, who would you prefer be president? Hilary or Rudy.
I am a registered republican, and I am voting for Ron Paul in the primary.
But if he loses, I really dont know who is worse. Rudy or Bilary.
We are soo gonuh win, oh yeah,the end of this artical reminds me of
the goose dropping I stepped on today. Ron Paul will win resistence is futile
All Republicans remeber how you felt when you were 17 and you were going in the Army, back when it was hard to get in, proud to be an American, Dr. Ron Paul restored that hope for an honest man to follow, He is the only one that can lead. Ron Paul 08
Ok. Who are you, again?
Sorry.
I landed here by accident, as you came up at the bottom of my daily Ron Paul Google Alert. And I clicked the link.
The other posters have already corrected the isolationist misinformation in your blog/letter, so I’ll just say “Hello….Happy Thanksgiving”, and hope that you vote for someone….anyone…who will continue to let us as Americans continue to agree to disagree.
If it literally comes down to Rudy or Hillary – get packing.
I’ll deal with a lot of these comments on the show this Sunday at 10:00 AM if you want to call in.
But I will say this now, for those of you who thought this was a hit piece or I was directing traffic toward Mike Huckabee you could not be more wrong. Admittedly I am endorsing Huckabee but that doesn’t mean I don’t like Paul too. Were it not for his NON-INTERVENTIONIST foreign policy I too would be voting for him. The point was, and some of you got this, to address the more caustic amongst you about not shooing away potential Paul supporters with your piss poor attitude and inability to have a rational discussion. Again, not all of you but enough that I get the same feelings from you (some) folks that I got from Nader supporters (and I voted for the guy in 2000). Screaming at me to support someone is probably the least effective way to convince me you have anything worthwhile to say.
I am more than happy to entertain phone calls on this subject this Sunday at 10:00 on blogtalkradio.com/pclive
I am a big Ron Paul supporter. I registered to vote simply to vote for the guy in the primaries. That said, I don’t care if he does not use the term “isolationist” his foreign policy is a text book case of isolationism in an American context. In the 1920’s it is widely recognized we had an isolationist foreign policy, and it is basically the exact same as Ron Paul’s. Now does Ron Paul want feudal Japan style isolation, no. But what he advocates has been refered to as isolationism for a long time, it is sorta ridiculous to want to change the meaning of the word.
Mark, I’m sorry you’re so scared of the big bad Iranians but I think if you did a little more research, your fear would subside. There are numerous books written by CIA agents who dedicated their entire careers to the middle east and they all seem to agree with Dr. Paul. I have tried to find a book written by someone as qualified with a dissenting opinion but can not find one. Since I trust the expertise of the head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit above the “opinion” of Dubya, Rudy and Hillary, I can’t agree with you. I’m not sure how you get more reliable info than the CIA gets but it would be nice if you would share that information with your readers. I’m also not sure why you think that the American Military could not defend us from Hezbollah if they were to threaten us. I think you’re severely under-estimating this country’s excellent armed forces. Even though you claim to agree with Dr. Paul’s economic views, you seem to think our dollar problems are seperate from the maintenance of our empire. If that is the case, you probably have not done enough reading on economics and monetary policy to offer much more on the subject than Hillary or Rudy.
Finally, before writing about Ron Paul, you should do a few minutes of research. Based on the short post above, it’s obvious your information about Paul comes from second hand sources and not your own research. Otherwise, you’d know that Dr. Paul is not an isolationist (Dubya’s foreign policy actually has more similarities to isolationism that Paul’s does). Of course, it might be the case that you’re substituting the word “isolationist” for “non-interventionist” but that would mean you’re either dishonest or using words that you don’t understand. Calling Dr. Paul an isolationist would be like me calling you a hermit because you don’t take your car and do donuts in your neighbors yard.
Again, I’m sorry you’re scared but I think you had a motive other than an open letter to Ron Paul supporters. That is obvious after finding out you support Huckabee and, in the past, Nader?!?!? I have no reason to try and convince you to support Paul. If you support the big spending, high tax politics of Nader and Huckabee, you’re someone that SHOULD NOT be voting for Paul. Paul is for small government and, since you don’t agree with that, I would suggest you stick with the candidates that are closer to your views (Huckabee, Rudy, Hillary, etc.).
Shawn Sanders, you are dead wrong. “Isolationism”, in the American context has always included “Protectionism”. For you to say that Dr. Paul’s foreign policy is the exact same as the American version of isolationism is factually incorrect. I’m glad you’re supporting Dr. Paul but you really should do a little more reading on isolationism. It is you that is changing the meaning since there isn’t a shred of protectionism in any of Paul’s platform.
Mark,
I appreciate your article and the point you were trying to make… and the fact that you realize how use of even just one inflammatory remark (Isolationism) can deride an otherwise healthy discussion. You understand why the Ron Paul supporters are particularly sensitive regarding the use of this word, right? It has been used to mis-characterize and smear by anti-Ron folks. Since you highlighted the replacement of it (non-interventionism) in your more recent post, my respect for you has improved greatly… in fact, I will attempt to listen to and be a part of your show on Sunday – is that eastern time? I live in Arizona so I never know what friggin’ time it is anywhere else half the year (no daylight savings here)…
Isolationist??????????????? I am beginning to think that there are a lot of writers who are purposely writing stories on Ron Paul that they know to not be accurate, just to see how much response they can draw, maybe that gives them bragging rights?? one thing is for sure they are not changing or shaping anyones opinions about Dr. Paul, here is a word of warning though, don’t think that we will forget who you are!
Just to let the author know – only 5 countries claim that Hezbollah are terrorists.
In the United States, non-interventionism has often been confused with Isolationism. Critics of non-interventionism frequently add to this confusion by smearing prominent non-interventionist as isolationists. However, true isolationism combines a non-interventionist foreign policy with protectionism (economic nationalism) and strict border controls to prevent international travel and cultural exchange. The majority non-interventionists in the United States reject protectionism in favor of free trade, international travel, and cultural exchange. YES, Ron Paul is a NON-INTERVENTIONIST! Please for God Sake learn the difference, unless you’re intentially misleading or smearing Ron Paul. Also, while I’m on a roll – The term “Long Shot” for Ron Paul can gracefully be discarded into the compost pile of media bias and propaganda.
We are in Iraq because we became cowards after 9/11, not because of the UN. The UN in fact did not want to go to war.
The remark about free trade
Here is Ron Paul’s exact quote why he opposes it, “If we were interested in free trade, as the pretense is, you could initiate free trade in one small paragraph. This bill is over 1,000 pages, and it is merely a pretext for free trade. At the same time we talk about free trade, we badger China, and that is not free trade. I believe in free trade, but this is not free trade. This is regulated, managed trade for the benefit of special interests. That is why I oppose it.”
Is meaningless dribble. What is his one paragraph? How would it not give up national sovereignty ? Did NAFTA not go far enough? Is he unable to compromise to futher his cause?
Chris, that is a hillarious piece of satire. Your post brilliantly makes fun of how uninformed anti-Paul people are. It’s so subtle that it almost seems you really believe what you’re saying. Of course, I know it’s satire since 5 minutes of research on Google prove the first sentences and last sentence of yuour post wrong.
so andrew what did you find?
Chris, fifteen years ago I wrote something similar about NAFTA and I imagine others did. When Ron Paul makes this comment, it makes sense to me. It is not meaningless dribble to me. Perhaps those of us who support Ron Paul have failed you in not collecting the reading list. I apologize for that.
What would that small paragraph be like? I don’t know these things. Something like this, maybe:
Yeehaw! This is cool! Citizens of USA, you are free to trade with people of any of these countries: Just don’t sell any munitions and don’t forget to pay the 2% import duty on core commodities. Don’t come running to Uncle Sam if you don’t like the trade policies of that country, that’s their problem. You don’t have all that red tape of the treaty and you don’t have the rules by some international committee changing all the time. As far as Uncle Sam is concerned this is as easy as buying from another state. Best wishes and GO FOR IT!
Chris, I’m sorry for being an ass. I thought you were joking. Paul has never said the UN forced us to go to war but the Bush administration used legal arguments based on UN Resolutions to try to justify the invasion. It was mostly Resolution 1441 (it was the center of Colin Powell’s address to the Security Council) but at the same time they were also using earlier resolutions, 660 and 678, and arguing the U.S. could legally enforce compliance through military means.
As for NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO or any other “Trade Agreement”, as Scott has already said, they’re not required for free trade. Free trade is the absence of trade restrictions and while that language would probably differ slightly from Scott’s example, he makes the point. Here’s what Paul says on his site (the first place anyone would look for his view)…
[“So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.
The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.
The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.”]
[”So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation.
None of which has to do with free trade. In fact it is an argument against free trade.
The WTO has no police or army. Anything that we do with them we do because our leaders want to.
Since Bush was looking very hard for a reason to invade Iraq any reason would do. If you remember his main arguement was that they were going to nuke us.
Exactly how would pulling out on any of these organizations prevent France from taxing our goods or the ICC from trying our soldiers.
Please post the link to the one paragraph that Ron Paul says would be the free trade bill.
Steve
Don’t sell arms. Sounds like a trade restriction. I’m also surprised that you are perfectly willing to let our people sell advance technology and uranium to whatever country wants them. Plus our business already complain about the unfair trade practices of other nation. It sounds like we should open our borders to everyone and not ask other to do it.
Chris, you must have a different definition of “Free Trade”. NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO attach rules to trade and create “managed trade”, not “free trade”. In fact, as long as we have NAFTA and CAFTA, you can’t say we have “free trade” since “free trade” and “managed trade” can not co-exist. Do words fool you that easily? Do you also think that all patriots support the Patriot Act?
I don’t know where you got the idea that Paul has written a one paragraph piece of legislation for free trade but I imagine someone told you this since you seem pretty adamant about it. You should ask that person for the link. As far as I know, Paul hasn’t written something like this but, I’ll repeat, Scott’s post covers the basic idea. Our government ok’d and took part in the sale of weapons to Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Mujahideen and others but you’re worried some company might sell uranium to another country. Even if this wasn’t an absurd fear (since aquiring uranium is one of the easier steps in building a nuclear weapon), do you think no other country has uranium now? It sounds as if you’re naive or just frightened.
One more thing Chris…. the burden of proof rests on you. Why do we need to be part of the UN? What good does it do American citizens? Why do we need NAFTA? What good does it do American citizens?
Why did steve put a ban on arms sale?
Here is Ron Paul’s exact quote why he opposes it, “If we were interested in free trade, as the pretense is, you could initiate free trade in one small paragraph.
Un a world where you can go from tampa to sydney on 21 hours the more you talk to your neighbors the better off you are. In a world where so much trade intertwines countries it is best to have lots of places to talk.
Nafta and the others are steps on the way to free trade. There will never be completely free trade. Even in the US there are some restrictions of free trade between the states mainly dealing with agriculture.
Who the hell is Steve and how would I know why he would put a ban on arms sales? I don’t even know Steve so I definitely can’t read his mind.
Who said anything about not talking to our neighbors? I haven’t read all these comments so don’t expect me to responsd to questions you have about other poeple’s posts. A Paul administration would have better diplomatic relations with the world than any other during your lifetime. Why do you keep going off on tangents that don’t appear to be related to my posts at all?
Of course there will never be completely free trade because there are governments. Right now, we have nothing resembling free trade. That’s the point. We only have control over US trade and we can implement free trade in the US by removing trade restrictions. NAFTA and others are steps away from Free Trade. This is pretty simple so you should be able to grasp it. Removing trade restrictions and rules are steps towards free trade, adding restrictions and rules (NAFTA, CAFTA, etc,) are steps away from free trade. I understand if you don’t want free trade. Lots of people have that opinion. But don’t try and change the meaning of free trade just so you can say you support it. That’s something politicians do and, even then, it only works on the gullible.
Andrew
My comments on uranium and high tech were in resonse to steves comment on what he thought the one paragraph was.
Please explain how we would have better diplomatic relations by ignoring institutions that others consider important.
If you start out with tariffs and embargos on all items and end up with tariffs and embargo on less items how is that not a step towards free trade.
Under the tariff acceleration, Mexico and the U.S. are eliminating tariffs on an equivalent set of products, and Mexico will eliminate tariffs on additional items for which the U.S. tariff is already zero. Mexico and Canada are eliminating tariffs between their two countries on a parallel package of goods. NAFTA originally scheduled the elimination of tariffs on the products included in the agreement through periods extending to the year 2008. Duties on covered products traded between the United States and Canada were eliminated on January 1, 1998. Following procedures set out in NAFTA, Ambassador Zoellick and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts agreed to accelerate the elimination of tariffs.
How does Ron Paul see foreign aid in his non-interventionist vision? Would the US offer aid to countries in crisis due to natural disaster, due to financial mismanagement or due to local wars and brutality? What does he see as the US role in promoting global health and welfare, if any? (This is not a bait – I really am wondering) Thanks.
Leave A Reply