Ron Paul: Cut Foreign Aid, Unshackle Israel, Leave Iran Alone

[Deicide]

This topic is why "Decide" makes my skin crawl and even though I like Emmortal, I feel like smashing his head through a concrete wall.

This idiotic and false assumption that Islamist fanatics will lay down their arms and embrace freedom if we merely stop "occupying" Muslim land is so stupid it defies explanation.

Do you morons know anything about Islam or world history?

We are at war against an ideology that has more than 1 billion adherents-- The supposed battleground between primitive cockroaches and the civilized world rests in Israel right? Can any of you that support Ron Paul piece together a coherent argument that rationally articulates how or why America abandoning its interests/ allies in the region will put an end to Al Queda/ the numerous warped off-springs that threaten our national security on a daily basis?

There is not a single shred of evidence that appeasement will work with these animals. Not one. You Ron Paul supporters that applaud his foreign policy are merely useful idiots. You  are no different than Hugo Chavez, Sean Penn or any other mindless liberal stooge that hates America.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.- Winston Churchill

The country is broke and whether you agree with us or not, the country cannot afford these endless wars anymore.

This is just the typical neocon line: you don't support constant wars, death and wasted money abroad=you hate America (and this has been thoroughly refuted many times).

[Deicide]

http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2011/04/04/suicides-taking-more-lives-than-war-2/

More and more American soldiers are continuing to take their lives as a result of the war effort. By November of 2009, the total was up to 334, which are more than the totals killed in Afghanistan. Of every 100,000 army soldiers, the suicide rate is 20.2. The numbers for the suicides are as follows, Navy 47, Air Force 43 and Marines 42, the rest being in the Army. According to the Navy Times, 2  percent of Army,  3 percent Navy and 2.3% of Marine soldiers reported in a survey that they had attempted suicide at one point.  There were a lot of different cases for the suicide attempts including relationships, substance abuse, financial problems or problems with other members of their unit to go along with some others.

 

Another bad statistic has to do with the veterans that have already been in war and suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). PTSD can affect their will to live when they come home. A study showed that 47 percent of veterans with PTSD had had thoughts of suicide before they found help. More than 40 per 100,000 men from the ages of 20 to 24 take their lives each year. Some deaths, which are not part of these previous statistics, are due to drinking and driving due to depression drinking by the soldiers. In 2008, Iraq and Afghanistan veterans were 75 percent more likely to die in a car accident and 148 percent more likely to die in a motorcycle accident. One of the reasons for the increase in the number of veterans with PTSD has to do with the advances in body armor and medical treatment for the soldiers. As of  2009 some 360,000 men and women had suffered some sort of brain injury while in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Deicide]

How much endless, protracted war is enough?

How many thousands of US soldiers is enough?

How many trillions of dollars is enough?

Is 5000 US soldiers enough?


I dont know, I just did an equipment install at a VA in IL...just stepping foot in there is a wake up call. There is aframed picture in the entrance that reads "WELCOME TO VA HINES, THE PRICE OF FREEDOM IS VISIBLE HERE"....now I've had friends "over there" my grandfather was "over there" my dad and his other 2 brothers were "over there"....

it hits you, when is enough enough?

"It's never enough until your heart stops beating..."

[tonymctones]

Your question is bogus, so it won't be completely addressed.

Ron Paul doesn't advocate isolating us from the world. He advocates ending mindless, senseless wars like the one in Iraq, or the "engagement" in Libya that's brought our own country to the brink of financial collapse.  He's also advocated beefing up our own domestic security.   

This isn't extremely complex, his policies would clearly put us in a better position from a financial and security stand point.

LOL so another person who feels its either all out war or we must step back all together?

paul does advocate for isolationism, he advocates for turning blind eyes to potential long term threats like iran...fact is fact bro

iran has behaved themselves b/c they know if they fuck off will fuck them up.

WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN IF WE SAY, MIDDLE EAST YOUR ON YOUR OWN?

my questions arent bogus they are simply the reality of it.

if we pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, do you think we and our assets abroad will be safe?

[tonymctones]

Let me turn that around by asking you this, do you think if we stay there we are going to eradicate all of them and they will leave us alone?

THIS IS MY POINT, which is the reason you guys wont answer my question...

THEY WILL NEVER LEAVE US ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

so turning a blind eye and ignorning potential long term problems LIKE IRAN, is IDIOTIC!!!

[Deicide]

LOL so another person who feels its either all out war or we must step back all together?

paul does advocate for isolationism, he advocates for turning blind eyes to potential long term threats like iran...fact is fact bro

iran has behaved themselves b/c they know if they fuck off will fuck them up.

WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN IF WE SAY, MIDDLE EAST YOUR ON YOUR OWN?

my questions arent bogus they are simply the reality of it.

if we pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, do you think we and our assets abroad will be safe?

It would not be perfect, don't know if anyone is saying that but it would be A LOT better. Most Middle Eastern countries hate Iran because Iran practises Shia Islam and everyone else practises Shia; Suni hate would keep them in check, in fact, apart from Israel, the Saudis are the ones who want us most to attack Iran. Why do we need 1,000+ military bases in 130+ countries? how does that benefit the average hard working middleclass American? I have yet to hear a convincing argument on that.

[tonymctones]

It would not be perfect, don't know if anyone is saying that but it would be A LOT better. Most Middle Eastern countries hate Iran because Iran practises Shia Islam and everyone else practises Shia; Suni hate would keep them in check, in fact, apart from Israel, the Saudis are the ones who want us most to attack Iran. Why do we need 1,000+ military bases in 130+ countries? how does that benefit the average hard working middleclass American? I have yet to hear a convincing argument on that.

I can see your point and its valid, ill come back to this

so what happens when they all go ape shit and iran is gone? you think they just leave us alone?

the problem that none of you guys advocating pauls isolationist view want to admit and continue to side step is that THEY WILL NEVER LEAVE US ALONE!!!!!!!

join reality and admit that much...

now as for the 1000 military bases, I wouldnt mind drawing back but I adamently disagree with cutting back on things like R&D, training, investing in ways to keep our military ahead of the rest of the worlds.

[Deicide]

I can see your point and its valid, ill come back to this

so what happens when they all go ape shit and iran is gone? you think they just leave us alone?

the problem that none of you guys advocating pauls isolationist view want to admit and continue to side step is that THEY WILL NEVER LEAVE US ALONE!!!!!!!

join reality and admit that much...

now as for the 1000 military bases, I wouldnt mind drawing back but I adamently disagree with cutting back on things like R&D, training, investing in ways to keep our military ahead of the rest of the worlds.

Maybe not entirely leave us a lone but wouldn't 75% leave alone be better than the mess we have now? Plenty of these groups unite under a common banner of attacking Americans on their soil, that would ultimately turn on themselves with infighting if they did not have a common enemy. Remember Osama said he wanted to bleed us dry and he succeeded in that goal. Apart from the ethical issues of never ending wars I would like to keep that money for myself, rather than wasting it on this nonsense abroad. Taxes could go down significantly without this militarism, then reduce domestic programmes as well, who knows? Imagine an income tax of only 10% or 5%? imagine keeping most of what you earn? Apart from the ethical issues for me, that is why I favour RP's foreign policy.

[tonymctones]

Maybe not entirely leave us a lone but wouldn't 75% leave alone be better than the mess we have now? Plenty of these groups unite under a common banner of attacking Americans on their soil, that would ultimately turn on themselves with infighting if they did not have a common enemy. Remember Osama said he wanted to bleed us dry and he succeeded in that goal. Apart from the ethical issues of never ending wars I would like to keep that money for myself, rather than wasting it on this nonsense abroad. Taxes could go down significantly without this militarism, then reduce domestic programmes as well, who knows? Imagine an income tax of only 10% or 5%? imagine keeping most of what you earn? Apart from the ethical issues for me, that is why I favour RP's foreign policy.

they will still have a common enemy...us leaving isnt going to stop their hatred...

what about the ethical issues of turning a blind eye to attrocities committed by other countries? your ethics end with those being committed by the US? nice ethics there...

the problem you guys have is you dont seem to understand that they will still hate us, simply b/c we leave wont mean they will throw a big party and go back to their normal lives. Bin laden and his ilk have made it their life long goal...read that again LIFE LONG GOAL to hurt us here and abroad.

its extremely niave to think the way you do bro...

he is also for turning a blind eye to potential long term problems like Iran, again im not saying go to war but we cant simply let them develop into a powerful country that obviously hates us and then act suprised when they lash out and strike us.

[Deicide]

they will still have a common enemy...us leaving isnt going to stop their hatred...

what about the ethical issues of turning a blind eye to attrocities committed by other countries? your ethics end with those being committed by the US? nice ethics there...

the problem you guys have is you dont seem to understand that they will still hate us, simply b/c we leave wont mean they will throw a big party and go back to their normal lives. Bin laden and his ilk have made it their life long goal...read that again LIFE LONG GOAL to hurt us here and abroad.

its extremely niave to think the way you do bro...

he is also for turning a blind eye to potential long term problems like Iran, again im not saying go to war but we cant simply let them develop into a powerful country that obviously hates us and then act suprised when they lash out and strike us.

It's not turning a blind eyes to other countries' actions but ultimately this is about whether or we should be the policemen of the world or not. I don't think we should, you do and we will just have to agree to disagree and if it any consolation, I doubt our foreign policy will change any time soon so you needn't worry.

[tonymctones]

It's not turning a blind eyes to other countries' actions but ultimately this is about whether or we should be the policemen of the world or not. I don't think we should, you do and we will just have to agree to disagree and if it any consolation, I doubt our foreign policy will change any time soon so you needn't worry.

what is the deal with you guys, if I disagree with pauls stance then i am automatically all the way to the other side? lol gezzz

LOL AND YES IT IS TURNING A BLIND EYE

youre the one that cited your ethics as reasoning, if that was really the case then you would cite them as reasoning to do other things as well dont get pissy with me b/c i made you realize that it was simply a talking point.

I dont think we should police the world, only the countries that are potential threats to us...LIKE IRAN!!!!

[Deicide]

what is the deal with you guys, if I disagree with pauls stance then i am automatically all the way to the other side? lol gezzz

LOL AND YES IT IS TURNING A BLIND EYE

youre the one that cited your ethics as reasoning, if that was really the case then you would cite them as reasoning to do other things as well dont get pissy with me b/c i made you realize that it was simply a talking point.

I dont think we should police the world, only the countries that are potential threats to us...LIKE IRAN!!!!

So, you think we should put sanctions on Iran?

[tonymctones]

So, you think we should put sanctions on Iran?

as a start, I also dont think we should be ok with them becoming a nation that possess nuclear weapons...

I see what you tried to do here sir, dont think that b/c i am against some of pauls stances that I dont know what they are...

[Deicide]

as a start, I also dont think we should be ok with them becoming a nation that possess nuclear weapons...

I see what you tried to do here sir, dont think that b/c i am against some of pauls stances that I dont know what they are...

Do you think it was good putting sanctions on Iraq in the 1990's? Do you agree with Madeleine Albright?

Maybe we can create a new tax system; you can pay for the bombs to drop on people and I can't to keep my tax money since I don't want to pay for that.

[tonymctones]

LOL so were back to your psuedo ethics again?

you see ethics for a single person are supposed to be universal for them...yours only seems to want to apply to the US, I can see now why pauls isolationist views appeal to you as you can apparently comparementalize your ethics to those that apply to us and those that apply to the rest of the world.

Ill agree with that tax system, Ill pay for the defense and you pay for the social welfare...

[Deicide]

LOL so were back to your psuedo ethics again?

you see ethics for a single person are supposed to be universal for them...yours only seems to want to apply to the US, I can see now why pauls isolationist views appeal to you as you can apparently comparementalize your ethics to those that apply to us and those that apply to the rest of the world.

Ill agree with that tax system, Ill pay for the defense and you pay for the social welfare...

Uhm, I don't want social welfare; libertarian remember? I want neither war nor welfare. Like I said before, liberals want to spend endlessly on entitlements, conservatives (such as yourself) on warfare and we libertarians just don't want the spending period because both spending is bankrupting the country. It's not pseudo ethics; we don't have control over other countries' actions but we do have limited control over ours, that is why I am more concerned with what our government does more than say, Italy's or Australia's. You didn't answer my question by the way? were the 500,000+ children who died in Iraq worth the price of sanctions? were they terrorists as well or was it just necessary collateral damage? Fortunately for both liberals and conservatives I think the welfare/warfare state will continue for a while until we have hyperinflation or something of similar seriousness.

[tonymctones]

Uhm, I don't want social welfare; libertarian remember? I want neither war nor welfare. Like I said before, liberals want to spend endlessly on entitlements, conservatives (such as yourself) on warfare and we libertarians just don't want the spending period because both spending is bankrupting the country. It's not pseudo ethics; we don't have control over other countries' actions but we do have limited control over ours, that is why I am more concerned with what our government does more than say, Italy's or Australia's. You didn't answer my question by the way? were the 500,000+ children who died in Iraq worth the price of sanctions? were they terrorists as well or was it just necessary collateral damage? Fortunately for both liberals and conservatives I think the welfare/warfare state will continue for a while until we have hyperinflation or something of similar seriousness.

what you dont understand is that defense and social assistance are needed to a certaint extent...

it certainly is psuedo ethics b/c you pick and choose where to apply them

LOL at your question, how many died before our sanctions? so we should or shouldnt sanction iran?

always going to be negative consequences to your actions, EVERY ACTION that doesnt mean you shouldnt do them...

so we should turn a blind eye to irans oppresive govt?

[Deicide]

what you dont understand is that defense and social assistance are needed to a certaint extent...

it certainly is psuedo ethics b/c you pick and choose where to apply them

LOL at your question, how many died before our sanctions? so we should or shouldnt sanction iran?

always going to be negative consequences to your actions, EVERY ACTION that doesnt mean you shouldnt do them...

so we should turn a blind eye to irans oppresive govt?

We created Iran's oppressive government. If we had not gotten involved in the 1950's none of this mess would be there, so the answer to to keep on doing what we have been, which hasn't worked? I think close to a million children's deaths is too high a price to pay in Iraq and it would be as well for Iran. Defence is not militarism, I think defence is one of the functions of the government but defence is not policing the world and as for social assistance? why do we need that? if we didn't have an income tax we would have a lot more money to save and spend and so far the government's welfare programmes have not worked out too well. As for turning a blind eye, Saudi Arabia's government is just as bad as Iran's and we do nothing because they are our 'friends'. Let's at least be honest, this is about geopolitical domineering not helping 'oppressed' people.

[Soul Crusher]

Allowing iran to have a nuke is like giving obama access to the nations' checkbook.  Both end horribly.

[tonymctones]

We created Iran's oppressive government. If we had not gotten involved in the 1950's none of this mess would be there, so the answer to to keep on doing what we have been, which hasn't worked? I think close to a million children's deaths is too high a price to pay in Iraq and it would be as well for Iran. Defence is not militarism, I think defence is one of the functions of the government but defence is not policing the world and as for social assistance? why do we need that? if we didn't have an income tax we would have a lot more money to save and spend and so far the government's welfare programmes have not worked out too well. As for turning a blind eye, Saudi Arabia's government is just as bad as Iran's and we do nothing because they are our 'friends'. Let's at least be honest, this is about geopolitical domineering not helping 'oppressed' people.

this is another ron paul supporter tactic, well they are like this b/c of something we did...

IT DOESNT FUCKING MATTER WHY THEY ARE LIKE THAT AT THIS POINT!!!!!!!!!

yest lets be honest, and help those who are friends and not those who are potential threats...

im not for policing the world, ive said it before. I am for policing potential threats...

[Soul Crusher]

Correction for my last post.  I meant to say that giving iran a nuke is like giving obama the checkbook - both will defoinately blow up in your face.

[Fury]

This topic is why "Decide" makes my skin crawl and even though I like Emmortal, I feel like smashing his head through a concrete wall.

This idiotic and false assumption that Islamist fanatics will lay down their arms and embrace freedom if we merely stop "occupying" Muslim land is so stupid it defies explanation.

Do you morons know anything about Islam or world history?

We are at war against an ideology that has more than 1 billion adherents-- The supposed battleground between primitive cockroaches and the civilized world rests in Israel right? Can any of you that support Ron Paul piece together a coherent argument that rationally articulates how or why America abandoning its interests/ allies in the region will put an end to Al Queda/ the numerous warped off-springs that threaten our national security on a daily basis?

There is not a single shred of evidence that appeasement will work with these animals. Not one. You Ron Paul supporters that applaud his foreign policy are merely useful idiots. You  are no different than Hugo Chavez, Sean Penn or any other mindless liberal stooge that hates America.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.- Winston Churchill

GW bringing some much needed reality to this thread. Lot of people living in fantasy land with regards to Islamists. And speaking of Churchill, he wrote extensively on Islam 110 years ago and everything he said then is still applicable to Muslims today.

The overarching goal of Islam is to either convert, kill or enslave all non-Muslims. This won't change regardless of what we do in the region.

And for all the people who think that Iran has some claim to that region, here's a newsflash: They're PERSIAN. They've been fighting Arabs for centuries. They have as much business being in the Middle East as we do.  

Ron Paul is awesome on economics but if elected he's in for a rude awakening with regards to foreign policy. Not that he's wrong about our need to downsize our overseas commitments but neither end of the spectrum is realistic. Leaving the UN, NATO and cutting off the billions of dollars we funnel to legitimate terrorist states like Pakistan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc would be a great start along with the downsizing of a number of our bases (read: not all of them).

[roccoginge]

http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2011/04/04/suicides-taking-more-lives-than-war-2/

More and more American soldiers are continuing to take their lives as a result of the war effort. By November of 2009, the total was up to 334, which are more than the totals killed in Afghanistan. Of every 100,000 army soldiers, the suicide rate is 20.2. The numbers for the suicides are as follows, Navy 47, Air Force 43 and Marines 42, the rest being in the Army. According to the Navy Times, 2  percent of Army,  3 percent Navy and 2.3% of Marine soldiers reported in a survey that they had attempted suicide at one point.  There were a lot of different cases for the suicide attempts including relationships, substance abuse, financial problems or problems with other members of their unit to go along with some others.

 

Another bad statistic has to do with the veterans that have already been in war and suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). PTSD can affect their will to live when they come home. A study showed that 47 percent of veterans with PTSD had had thoughts of suicide before they found help. More than 40 per 100,000 men from the ages of 20 to 24 take their lives each year. Some deaths, which are not part of these previous statistics, are due to drinking and driving due to depression drinking by the soldiers. In 2008, Iraq and Afghanistan veterans were 75 percent more likely to die in a car accident and 148 percent more likely to die in a motorcycle accident. One of the reasons for the increase in the number of veterans with PTSD has to do with the advances in body armor and medical treatment for the soldiers. As of  2009 some 360,000 men and women had suffered some sort of brain injury while in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Wow that's pretty sad.

[Camel Jockey]

Ron Paul will never be elected because there's too many idiots in this country.

His policies are what this country needs though.

[Roger Bacon]

were the 500,000+ children who died in Iraq worth the price of sanctions?
[/quote

Damn, so it could be argued that we're responsible for the death of millions of Iraqi Civilians.

Real Christians we are...