Ron Paul 2012 Support.

I know we have a lot of Paulites in here, and that's fine, but cherry-picking or not, WW2 is a perfectly decent test of Paul's foreign policy. It's reasonable to ask how (or if) it can be reconciled with foreign atrocities, because while the war itself was exceptional, similarly horrible things on smaller scales take place far more frequently. So the man deserves a straight answer on that, I think.

Ron Paul Served in the Military. How come its allways teh chickenhawks that bang the war drum the loudest?

__________________
"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.

I don't grant the premise, for one. And for another, the "chickenhawk" designation is all kinds of goofy, unless we want to start saying only the families of police deserve protection, or have a right to have opinions on it. It's also ad hominem, besides.

Regardless, it's a fair question to ask how Paul's foreign policy would react to other situations in history. Not sure why everyone's brushing it off.

so u can cherry pick, but a Chickenhawk can't be introduced into the conversation?

how does that work?

What makes you so uncomfortable about dealing with teh reality of today and want to play the hypothetical games of yesteryear?

Replublicans dont want anyone to bring up the War Crimes of Bush/Cheny and that was less than a decade ago for cripes sake, but you are all for dissecting 60 years ago?

seriously?

lest you have forgotten,


I assume you won't watch the entire documentary, however a few minutes of your time will see the opening which introduces all the contributors, whose integrity and intelligence and military background should hold more sway than a Dirty Canadian Hippy.

It works quite easily. One is an ad hominem argument which doesn't hold together in other areas, and the other is a real-world test of an ideology. And I don't actually think it is cherry-picking, besides, because there are all sorts of other foreign atrocities that human decency will tempt us to put an end to. It's not a question of if a President Paul would face such a choice, but merely when.

I didn't say we can't talk about the war, I just don't think the "chickenhawk" designation has any argumentative weight or value, for a few reasons.

We've established that you like Ron Paul's position as it relates to our current situation, but it's not the only situation the next President will find themselves in. So it's a perfectly fair question: how does an isolationist foreign policy react to foreign atrocities?

hope choose mitt Romney or newt Gingrich.

Yoda, I'm on a mobile right now, so I can't say everything Id like. I truly believe calling his foreign policy isolationism is unfair. I know you've probably heard this argument, but there is a significant difference between his non intervention policies and calling him an isolationist. Also, you can make the WW2 challenge, sure, but I can make the argument that Paul's policies would of been way more effective in the early days of today's war(s).

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

...and really pink? Gingrich? The guy that had to release a comprehensive list of political regrets and mistakes?

Iran, the terrorist organizations, and other Muslims who take religion too seriously, are might greater danger from Nazi Germany.

wut

Aye, but that's pretty much exactly my point: that Paul gets a swell of support because his policies fit the zeitgeist and (perhaps) the current situation, but that doesn't mean they're sensible ideologies in other circumstances. Supporting him for that reason alone is about as selective as opposing him based on examples from the past, because neither represents the totality of what a President's foreign policy must contend with. Asking how a belief is supposed to work in other common scenarios is a very basic part of evaluating its merit.

As for whether or not it's "isolationist"--well, it depends on how far he takes it. Has he enumerated any exceptions to his general hands-off approach? It's hard to imagine what kind of exceptions he would actually support if he's said that he's fine with Iran having nukes. If he hasn't, then there's no argument: he's an isolationist. If he has, then it depends on what they are.

I also want to highlight, again, that the "WW2 challenge" is not limited to WW2. Many Presidents since have faced the decision of whether or not to intervene in foreign affairs when it was obvious that human rights and lives were being trampled on. On a smaller scale, sure, but it raises the same questions.

frankly my dear , i don't give a damn about the political regrets and mistakes he has done , he at least did not will destroy the world.

IRAN , THE TRRORIST ORGANIZATIONS , and - other - Muslims - who take religion too seriously, are might greater danger from Nazi Germany.

Gingrich is a brilliant tool. And I don't mean he's brilliant at being a tool. I mean he's both things, simultaneously. Probably a good President, definitely a bad candidate, and guess which people care more about these days? Yeah, that second one.

Says who? No country in the world has any money.

And since Ron Paul is the bringer of armageddon with his silly ideas of peace and common sense, let's hope for political puppet Mitt Romney!

LOL! ommon sense?!?!

The man said it was legitimate to Iran to have nuclear weapons. A country that says Israel and US should be annihilated in every chance she gets, it really is legitimate it would hold a mass destruction?

iran is a state that prevents only through religion, through the Koran, it is impossible to reason with her and would never to give her hold nuclear weapons.
It's not a threat only to Israel, that threaten to the world.

I think chickenhawk is a fine designation for those who are particularly aggressively warlike and never served like Frank Miller telling OWS to join the military when he never did and Dick Cheney's endless deferments.

It is one thing to think America should avoid foreign entanglements as much as possible, it is another thing to be an isolationist like Ron Paul. It is a recipe for disaster because instead of avoiding war the United States could end up in a much larger war as was the case with World War II, or a nuclear confrontation we lose. Done right American involvement avoids wars or wars that are too large.

As for Obama, Afghanistan can't be walked away from because of the threat of terrorism, Libya we played a secondary role in as part of NATO, and the Iraq conflict is ending. If McCain had become President we would still be fighting in Iraq and would probably have troops in Libya and moving to get directly involved in Syria.

For an isolationist there may be no difference between Dems and Repubs. But it is also the difference between seeking international cooperation and under Republicans like the second Bush an aggressive anti UN stance and my way or the highway, either with us or against us.

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

I don't believe you ever put American fighting soldiers on foreign soil for the primary purpose of human rights. We would be fighting all over the world for that.

Kuwait is a good example of a war that had to be fought. Letting Sadam Hussein get away with invading another country is how Hitler started. Dems who were opposed to sending troops there were wrong.

You apparently think Perry would be a good president if he somehow could get elected so your asessment of Gingich is suspect.

Gingrich might make a good president or at least not be a disaster. I have a suspicious he would be more moderate and less confrontational than when he was Speaker, but there is no way to know for sure.

An even greater threat than Nazi Germany? You're nuts.