Ron Paul 2012 Support.

Yes...how dare people be required to take care of themselves! The nerve of some people! The idea that I have to get up each day and make something of myself....Ridiculous!

__________________

It is no big surprise a Libertarian Magazine would defend Ron Paul.

It is also no big surprise a Jewish organization even a Republican based one gets all super defensive about Israel.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

No worries.

Thanks for that. My problems with this are threefold:

First, when someone says they'll do it "when it's necessary" but neglect to define exactly when that is, they haven't told us much. He says we should do it "if our national security was threatened," but that's a truism; nobody disagrees with that. The issue is always when that is.

Second, I'm not really trying to make the case that he's a "complete" isolationist, because I'm not sure such a creature exists in anything resembling mainstream politics. But if someone says they're not an isolationist, but isn't sure they can come up with any example in which they'd intervene in foreign affairs over the last say, century or so, then I don't think there's any serious distinction between the two, nor any problem with using the label. The difference sounds pretty theoretical.

Third, Paul's punting on this question when he says he'll go to war "When Congress directs me to." Meaning what? Congress decides, and he just does what they tell him? That doesn't seem quite right. I also have a bit of an issue with his interpretation of the purpose of Congress declaring war, too, but I'm not trying to get into an argument about Constitutional interpretation. We can't even really establish meaningful ground rules on the topic, anyway, because Paul sometimes defines thing in the Constitution as unconstitutional, because he seems to use that word ("unconstitutional") to describe things he feels are not in the initial spirit of the thing, even legally ratified Amendments. But even putting that aside, it's still a pretty obtuse answer to the question. He's being asked a profound moral question, and he's giving a bland, legal answer.

Don't get hung up on WW2, though; that's just convenient shorthand for "righteous cause." To avoid any issues with that, I rephrased the question to refer to foreign atrocities in general. Would he intervene in Rwanda to stop ethnically-targeted slaughtering, for example? Do you think we should intervene in those sorts of circumstances?

I think this hurts Paul more than helps him. He gives us a little history lesson about the relationship between the two wars, but saying a war is hard to avoid tells us essentially nothing about his position. If anything, it indicates that he'd probably have held off longer than FDR did.

Paul does this sort of thing a lot, by the way: he gives vague answers about direct foreign policy questions, and then segues to talking about historical context, even when that context doesn't help answer the question. He does it in this clip when he explains the genesis of WW2, and he does it in the debates when someone asks him about Iran. He segues to complaining about the policies that have led to a given situation instead of answering the question. That works okay as a condemnation of cumulative U.S. foreign policy, but it does nothing to defend his proposed alternative.

I intended the question for you too, Dex: how does a Paul foreign policy respond to foreign atrocities, if at all? And how do you think it should respond?

I've got some possible follow-up questions, as well, if you'll indulge them. I'm skeptical that your stated political positions can be reconciled with your support of Paul.

Mind pointing out the lies and the distortions? Mind pointing out just one? I don't even support Paul, but I think the video is spot on.

Honestly, it sounds like it's just your emotional backlash to the video.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

I am not going through listening to it again, but the most most glaring lie was Obama is continuing Bush's policies in Iraq when we are withdrawing our troops.

The rest of it was simplistic crap. I didn't support the war in Iraq but those supposed freedom fighters mostly targeted Iraqis belonging to different tribes and not American troops. They were killing each other more than us and fighting for freedom had nothing to do with it. They left out the part justifying Americans killing each other based on religion and skin color because there was a foreign military force here.

For those that like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy

&feature=player_embedded

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

Soldiers overwhelmingly supported Bush, too, as I recall. I'm guessing that doesn't change your mind much about him.

I'll take another shot: how does a Paul foreign policy respond to foreign atrocities, if at all? And how do you think it should respond?

The difference being this is among Republicans. Paul was the landslide leader back in 2008 as well, even though War Hero McCain got the nomination.

which Foreign Atrocities?

Saudi Arabia you mean?

I'm not sure I understand the point. The military strongly supports Ron Paul (I haven't verified that but it sounds true enough to me), and you're presenting that as an argument that Republicans should support his foreign policy, yes? So wouldn't that have been an argument for Bush's foreign policy as well, given how strongly the military supported him?

The point, of course, is that we shouldn't be ceding our opinions about foreign policy to whatever a majority of the military chooses at a given time. Military support is something people cite when it favors them, and respectfully disagree with when it doesn't.

It's a hypothetical, so you can feel free to make one up, or explain what kinds you would support and what kinds you wouldn't.

In general, however, I was thinking of things like ethnic cleansing or genocide and, to a lesser extent, oppressive governments persecuting their citizens. Does Paul's foreign policy take a hands-off approach to these things? If so, do you agree with that?

I'd like to know your answer to that hypothetical, Yoda.

Do you support trusting our government to shape the world for their (our?) benefit with foreign interventions/occupations? And if so, how do you reconcile the cognitive dissonance of believing our government messes up when it meddles within our borders yet believe it should be allowed to meddle outside of our borders?

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

My answer is that we do need to reserve the right to intervene when atrocities are taking place. Determining what meets that threshold is the tough part, but I think it's clear that we can't just write the world off and hole ourselves up. I think that's problematic both morally and (in the long-term) pragmatically.

As for trusting government to do things: there is simply no incentive for private citizens to band together and stop genocide half a world away. There is no serious argument to be made that market forces apply to that sort of thing. This doesn't make government a great option for it; it makes it the only one. This is no more a hurdle for someone who believes in the power of markets than the idea that the government needs to enforce laws in general. Everybody outside of the die-hard libertarians acknowledges that some things have to be done collectively. This is one of them.

Why, what's your answer? Or are you still not taking questions?

I agree: It's hard to find an appropriate line. Ideally, it would be nice to help oppressed peoples without ideologues taking it too far. The problem is, since our government has been hijacked by wealthy corporate and financial interests, it has become far too easy for agendas motivated by profit (and pie-in-the-sky long term ideological plans to shape global affairs for the benefit of ostensibly capitalist and democratic interests) to get greenlit while being backed loud and hard by mouthpiece media who help create and maintain an aura of righteousness and necessity.

So while I love the idea of helping people, as well as fostering democracy especially when it's more than a buzzword used when an elite needs cannon fodder but then disappears from conversation or is considered an outright threat when they don't, and while I also think capitalism works well enough especially when it isn't monopolized by a few who warp the system as needed, I unfortunately find our foreign activities dubious, to say the least.

Ok. This is widely agreed upon. Ron is simply saying it isn't the President's move to determine what meets that threshold. He should go to other members of the government unlike our past two presidents. Anyway, we are doomed with SOPA and the lock up American citizens believed to be terrorists legislation. We need you Ron. Our could tries outlook is bleak. Ill probably be fighting in Iran by 2013 if any of these other clowns are elected. Love that video Dex, made me feel a bit emotional.

Chris, what do you think about the videos blowback illustration?

Also re: bush foreign policy. It was a good policy when he was campaigning.

__________________
If I had a dollar for every existential crisis I've ever had, does money really even matter?

The United States should never unilaterally invade another country for the sole purpose of human rights, never. It would be a recipe for disaster. And we don't, not ever. As part of a UN mandate in a coalition, that is different.

Well obviously that is a case by case basis. A lot of it depends on whether it can be afforded.

Personally i dont think America is in the right financial shape to be borrowing from China to finance these made up war on terror campaigns.

I'd maybe get behind American Foreign Policy a bit more if they didnt only choose to intervene when texas tea was in teh region.


Hypothetical atrocities are a bit silly though.

What im saying is, ChickenHawks that love the War effort, and would wish it to continue forever and ever, who believe a boogieman hides behind every tree, maybe might pause of a moment and wonder, why would military people, knowing what Pauls stated intention is, why on earth would they overwelmingly throw their support in for him?

why would they do that?

And if it can be afforded, in what kind of circumstances would it be justified? That's the question being posed.

The idea of using a "hypothetical atrocity" was for your benefit, so you can describe exactly the kinds of circumstances under which you believe intervention is necessary. In real life, the types of things I'm talking about are not hypothetical, but plenty common, and something any modern President will have to grapple with at some point.

So, this is take five of the same question: what does a Paul foreign policy say about foreign atrocities (ethnic cleansing, genocide, or pick something else as an example, if you wish), and what do you think should be done in those situations?

Because they agree with him right now, obviously. And before, most of them agreed with Bush. As I said, military support is something people use as an argument when it suits them, but disagree with respectfully when it doesn't. When they supported Bush, I assume you respectfully disagreed with them, yes?