OK, one did get through.  Since none of us can stay on this site forever, I want to answer your question, C. Stanley, but this site’s scripts are affecting my browser.  My e-mail is guy_b5@yahoo.com.  I’ll be glad to continue this discussion if you want to write me there.

 

Right, CS, a non-interventionist foreign policy cannot be justified by supposed gratitude of anyone. But I feel, it’s the right kind of policy for the long term.

Guy #49: Are you saying the Gazette finds you to be non-human?

I don’t have much time to either post or e-mail for the rest of the day, Guy. Just come back and post when you get a chance, either on this thread or any others on the topic in the future, and we can continue the discussion then.

Regarding the ‘captcha’ words to post comments: there was a way to login to this site so that commenters didn’t have to fill those out.  I’m going to e-mail Michael and Dustin about it, because I’m now not logged in and don’t see any place to do so (maybe I’m missing it though.) Not sure if something has changed or if I just got logged out and am not seeing the place to fill in the username/password.

If you have a stone-age computer (like I do), turning JavaScript off helps a whole lot…

Now, onto proving that I am a human. Keep your fingers crossed…

Nihat: My feeling is that benign intervention and defense against malicious intervention by other would-be powers in the world are the most correct and moral approach- but even then, I’d hesitate to make broad and rapid changes in any areas where we’ve fallen short of that. Correct what we can immediately and work to gradually correct the rest.

The problem with Paul’s "non-interventionist foreign policy" is that neither he nor his supporters seem willing to tell us what exactly it means, let alone willing or able to debate its broader implications. We know that it includes Afghanistan intervention but condemns Iraq intervention, but we have no idea upon what criteria future interventions would be weighed. We just have the marketing label, nothing more.

Paul supporters also decline to expound on its broader implications. What alliances would be terminated? What rivalries would be addressed and how? Which treaties would be pulled out of? Which new treaties would be considered and on what criteria? How would the U.S. participate (or not) in efforts to address global problems like pollution and climate change? What, if any, human rights issues would the United States care about and how would it express that caring? How, if at all, would the United States react to occurrences of genocide?

Given the goal of a "revolutionary" change, these are vitally important questions to be answered. But all that Paul and his supporters ever offer in response is empty bromides about "humility" and "non-interventionism". We know that he would pull troops out of Iraq “on day one” but Paul and his supporters apparently have little interest in explaining what would happen on days 2 through 1460.

If it were a movement of incremental change, these might matter no more than the equally empty bromides of other candidates, but when one poses as a revolutionary, one adopts an obligation to explain exactly what the revolution is to be. Otherwise, one is merely a demagogue.

When it comes to pandering (i.e. Social Security), prone to capture by bizarre ideological fetishes (i.e. Paul’s monetary policy) and being vague and self-serving (i.e. the “non-interventionism” cant), Paul is no different than any other candidate. Because his proposals are radical, however, the usual politician refusal to be specific is even more irresponsible in Paul’s case than in the others.

but it’s another to assume that it has no meaning and that America doesn’t have any responsibility to exert power in a way that would deter those with less benign intent.

Very true, while a non-interventionalist policy may have it’s appeal. It’s naive to think that we actually could adopt one, the very world opinion that we would supposedly gain for it would in reality be against us for not acting when it’s desired for us to do so, and that does not count US Public support either.

To continue what I wanted to say before (then this will be it for me)
C. Stanley:1) You’re right in that a non-interventionist policy done at this point in time will still leave a very bad taste in the mouths of our foreign neighbors, due to Bush’s warmongering.  And no one can blame them.  Bush started a war over oil, not freedom.  He knew Iraq was not a threat to us, but attacked them anyway and lied about the reasons.But it’s illogical to stay in Iraq "just because we’re there now and to leave would create chaos."  That’s analagous to a burglar robbing your house and saying he can’t leave because you might feel panic over the fact that he burglarized your house in the first place.2)  I used to think that Anerica should police the world because it seemed we had only good intentions.  We had the H-bomb and never used it.  We didn’t colonize other countries.  We gave loans to poor countries and then said "forget it.  Don’t pay us back."  We were the utopian type of nation.  Except - that we weren’t!When I did my independent research I found: Our gov’t used the H-bomb to capitulate other nations.  Our CIA forced change in democratic regimes.  Almost all Presidents starting with Kennedy have bombed other nations, created embargos & economic sanctions, and given loans to countries in exchange for their doing what we wanted them to do - all in the name of "national interests."We weren’t altruistic.  We were international thugs.  We should intervene when there’s a real threat to our citizens and our nation, not to our Fortune 500’s overseas’ profits.

We should intervene when there’s a real threat to our citizens and our nation

More empty bromides….

Guy, my initial reaction to that is that it sounds like an exercise in self flagellation. You found out that America isn’t what you thought it to be, and instead of working for (as Jason suggests) corrective changes of course (which logically would have to be more gradual- see my previous comment), you feel we should admit that we’re the ‘burglar’ in the analogy and turn ourselves in to the authorities (or allow the ‘homeowner’ to give us our just desserts.)

It’s hard for me to engage your arguments at any level other than that because I disagree with the whole premise that we have been ‘thugs’ (again, see my previous comments, I do not believe America has been the pillar of moral authority but any understanding of history would show that we’ve used our power more sparingly and benignly than most other entities ever have.)

Nihat, I think that’s the best counter-argument to non-interventionism there is.

However, our policy of interfering anywhere and anytime we want only began under Bush Sr. and already peaked under Clinton.  Prior, we had been constrained at least to the traditional cold-war spheres of influence and moving forward we have to contend with Chinese expansion into Africa and Asia.

In the near future, we will see that it is absolutely impossible to maintain or expand our level of global influence from the point where are at - a position that was established during a brief window when competition was non-existent.

If we expand and interfere, we cannot negotiate with China to stop them from expanding.  If we withdraw, we can negotiate withdrawal - and I think we would suddenly find a lot of friends in the world.

I could go on and on with Prussia, Japan, and pre-WW1 parallels to current geopolitics, but I’ve probably gone on too long already!   People want soundbytes and isms and isolationism sure is a scary one!

Polls mean very little.  If you need proof youtube Penn & Teller + polls(FU Frank).  I cant wait till the Iowa cacus comes and people start saying "who is Ron Paul"?  Will he come in first?  It could very well be.  There is no for sure front runner, the state seems pretty split and only 5-10% of voters actully show up.  But the folks who know about Dr. Paul and his message will be voting for sure.  Top three finish guarenteed!  I cant wait to see how the MSM discredits his victory! 

If you dont agree with Ron Paul, thats OK, your opinion.  But you also disagree with our Founding Fathers in doing so.  There ideas and princeples are what made this country great!  So next time you want to through a jab at Dr. Paul, put Washington and Franklin in the put down, for his ideas, were thier’s. 

America: love it, or vote for anyone but Ron Paul!

Adrian

Lynx, of course we are back. Did you have any doubt? Anyway, I kind of like it here and may stay awhile..

At our meetings, it is surreal. The age span of the participants is at least 60 years. We have a WWII vet in our midst. We have a scary guy that I would not sit next to on the bus. Some anti-war democrats. Two guys wearing kilts? Natural homeschooling moms. The old libertarians and some Von Mises people. The pro-gun crowd with their cowboy boots and us technophiles. Everyone passing by at our meeting place stopped by to look over our shoulders. We are really a sight. This is one small group in a small part on America. This is being replicated across all 50 states.

C Stanley, we have a plan. Here is our "secret" plan to turn money into votes. Last night at our meeting we made sure everyone in the group was registered properly to vote. We congratulated all the members who stepped up and became PCO’s. We figured out how many preceints had open positions and made a plan to staff those.  We live in an open primary state so we are contacting everyone we know who is resgistered to vote and informing them about Ron  Paul. Most people do not go to primaries. We make sure everyone has a ride including the elderly who do not like to drive after dark.

We do not have to be the majority. There are so many candidates in the primary that we just have to show up. Showing up is what we are good at.

Adrain, we will not further our cause by telling people who have different views that they are unpatriotic. You do not win over people by assuating them, you win them over by enaging them. Think of it like Ron Paul’s policy on sovereignty taken to the smallest level possible, the individual.

Jason, non-intervention would mean ending sanctions on Cuba among many other things. We must first address the human rights abuses in our own country before we can "tell" the world how to behave. Why do we overlook human rights abuses of countries who are our allies (Saudia Arabia) and demonize those who are not (North Korea)? Yet no one gives a sh*t about human rights abuses in countries where they have nothing to offer us. A life in Africa is worth what to the western world? Non-intervention means stop funding Israel and then equally funding its adversaries.

I like this forum where important discussions are taking place. I am so tired of debating abortion and other topics whose only purpose is to polarize us. We will not agree on everything.

Jason, non-intervention would mean ending sanctions on Cuba among many other things.

That was an easy one. Keep going to more difficult issues and I’ll get interested.

We must first address the human rights abuses in our own country before we can "tell" the world how to behave.

So, if there was another Holocaust, you’d argue that the fact that racism still exists in some areas of the South means that the U.S. should sit it out?

And if that is NOT your position, please move past the empty bromides and articulate specific criteria for differentiating interventions we would contemplate from those we would reject.

Non-intervention means stop funding Israel and then equally funding its adversaries.

So, if Israel gets destroyed and its citizens killed off in a genocide, you think that’s just fine?

If that is not your position, I would call on you AGAIN to move past the easy talking points and get into the messy details of the real world. As I said, the constant stream of vague one-line talking points is uniquely irresponsible coming from a movement that claims to be revolutionary.

Also, I’d still like to hear how the sweeping Paul rhetoric about “entangling alliances” would play out in regards to NATO, the Partnership for Peace, Nunn-Lugar, etc. There exists a vast and complex system of connections between the United States and the rest of the world and Paul’s irresponsible and sweeping rhetoric calls it ALL into question. It is legitimate to insist that he (through his vigorous supporters, if necessary) EXPLAIN MORE instead of just regurgitating the same one-liners over and over and over again.

<< So, if there was another Holocaust, you?d argue that the fact that racism still exists in some areas of the South means that the U.S. should sit it out? >> When I see something I consider a Holocaust, may I use whatever influence I can bring to bear to publicize it?  Of course. May I organize voluntary action by like minded people which might help stop or mitigate this Holocaust.  Naturally. May I threaten you with violence, imprisonment or worse, at the point of a gun, to make you give up some of your hard earned property against your will in support of my actions, directly or indirectly through the IRS?  Absolutely NOT.

Voluntary action is unlikely to generate enough material power to stop a genocide. It certainly failed in Rwanda and is failing in Darfur. And publicity is unlikely to produce an outpouring of action when the most powerful country in the world responds by saying, "none of our business".

And at the point that Ron Paul has no problem taking my money to pay for his generation’s retirement, he forfeits any claim to be generally protective of people’s property rights.

Your claim would, however, have interesting implications for domestic law enforcement. Should we respond to crime by merely publicizing it and hoping that provokes the formation of a vigilante group that will hunt down the perpetrators? Because that is the natural outcome of your reasoning.

Anyway, I’m sure the voters deserve to know whether Ron Paul supports such an extreme and utterly ineffective reorganization of our social fabric rather than just blizzards of press releases about his fundraising numbers.

Jason,

Critera for determining interventions. That is easy an "Act of Congress" and declaration of war are required to intervene. "When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved," Paul concluded. "When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea, and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and the goals are less clear. No lives should be lost in Iraq unless Congress expresses the clear will of the American people and votes yes or no on a declaration of war." October 2002

If Israel were faced with genocide and congress made a declaration of war against their attackers, I would support the effort. I have physically supported our military in the past. I am a disabled veteran.

I can not go through a list of countries and state specifially how we should react to them but we have guidelines to determine when we should go to war. Each president gives the office more power. This happens with both Democrats and Republicans. No one is willing to give up the power when they get into office. The power to go to war should not rest with one person.

Trade: Paul stated on Lou Dobbs in April that he does not like NAFTA and the WTO transcripts are available here:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/23/ldt.01.html

With regards to SS, it is fair to the boomers who have paid for SS not to recieve it?

<< And at the point that Ron Paul has no problem taking my money to pay for his generation’s retirement, he forfeits any claim to be generally protective of people’s property rights. >>

Nonsense.  Ron Paul has a huge problem with SS tax.  He is however humane enough (country doctor coming through?) to aknowledge that it would be unfair to simply cast adrift those who have become dependent on it through no real fault of their own.  He has also clearly stated that he want to fund this through the savings which will result from ending the war, and many other major cost saving projects, which he has described in many speaches.  He has also made it clear that he intends to allow younger people (you maybe?) to opt out of the SS program almost immediately.

Surely, you can do better than to resort to outright lies just to trash someone you dislike for some reason?

As far as asking members of a local community to contribute a reasonably small amount to the cost of protecting their own property, that is a very far cry from forcing them at gunpoint to relinquish half their income for foreign adventures or rescue missions.

No one is willing to give up the power when they get into office. The power to go to war should not rest with one person.

I assume this means that Paul will be the exception?

<< I assume this means that Paul will be the exception? >>

Under the Constitution the power to declare war rests exclusively with Congress.

It has been Dubia who insisted on being the emperor exeption.

I wish people were more demanding in regards to foreign policies stand and positions  from  other candidates as they are from R.Paul.
What do we know about the other front runners  from GOP, besides their wishes to bomb everybody who does not comply with our demands….hmmmmm.
As always Paul gets unfair treatment, even from our own friends -co-posters here

Critera for determining interventions. That is easy an "Act of Congress" and declaration of war are required to intervene. "When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved," Paul concluded. "When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea, and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and the goals are less clear. No lives should be lost in Iraq unless Congress expresses the clear will of the American people and votes yes or no on a declaration of war." October 2002

Nice attempt to change the subject from substance (criteria for intervention) to process (procedures for obtaining authorization, but no sale. 

First, declarations of war come from Congress upon request of the President.  If Ron Paul were President, what criteria would he use to determine when he would or would not make such a request? 

Second, there is no substantive difference I can see between a Congressional bill called "declaration of war" and one called "authorization for the use of force".  Until and unless Paul can identify a SUBSTANTIAL difference between the two, even his process argument doesn’t mean much.

I can not go through a list of countries and state specifially how we should react to them but we have guidelines to determine when we should go to war. Each president gives the office more power. This happens with both Democrats and Republicans. No one is willing to give up the power when they get into office. The power to go to war should not rest with one person.

More bromides.  Please stop dodging the question.

Ron Paul has a huge problem with SS tax.  He is however humane enough (country doctor coming through?) to aknowledge that it would be unfair to simply cast adrift those who have become dependent on it through no real fault of their own.

How "convenient" that it "just happens" to coincide with appeasing the interests of the most powerful lobby (his co-generationists in the AARP) by continuing to escalate the tax burden on existing workers.  Sorry, no sale.  Unless I hear "means testing", I’m not buying that Paul’s position is any more serious than any one else’s.  Given his pose as an anti-tax advocate, that layers hypocrisy on to his other problems as a candidate.

He has also made it clear that he intends to allow younger people (you maybe?) to opt out of the SS program almost immediately.

Wrong.  His plan would allow us to opt out of benefits, but not out of the taxes that are funding CURRENT and FUTURE beneficiaries.

As far as asking members of a local community to contribute a reasonably small amount to the cost of protecting their own property, that is a very far cry from forcing them at gunpoint to relinquish half their income for foreign adventures or rescue missions.

Wow, you’re supplementing your bromides with gross misrepresentations now.  The foreign aid budget is less than 1% of the U.S. budget.  And it is unclear how much of the defense budget would be recovered from Paul’s reprioritization (due to his continuing vagueness on what it means in policy terms), but it is certain that it would not be all of it.  And even if it was, we are still way short of 50% of individual income. 

When will you stop with just repeating the talking points?

It has been Dubia who insisted on being the emperor exeption.

Your history is as bad as your spelling. The practice of ordering military intervention in the absence of a bill specifically labeled as "declaration of war" has occured DOZENS of times THROUGHOUT American history. It is in no way unique to the Bush administration. But have fun with the continuing non-responsive talking points… <Yawn>

I wish people were more demanding in regards to foreign policies stand and positions  from  other candidates as they are from R.Paul.

Increased scrutiny is due to a "revolution" than to minor modifications on the status quo.  Stop whining about it and step up to the burden of persuasion, why don’t you?

What do we know about the other front runners  from GOP, besides their wishes to bomb everybody who does not comply with our demands….hmmmmm.

Misrepresentation and snark is a poor basis to use for persuasion.

As always Paul gets unfair treatment, even from our own friends -co-posters here

If you want your candidate to be treated seriously, then you have to be able and willing to engage with skeptics.  Just whining about it or repeating empty bromides comes across as weak.

He is not my candidate ( and never will be), Jason.
And I never had or intend to give Paul’ position wide analyses or write thesis on it.
I did point to two links up thread to Paul himself , his critics and defenders.

All my argument really and truly come to the unfairness I see in the scrutiny R.Paul receives from his critics in comparison to other front runners

sashal: I do want to discuss and examine the foreign policy proposals of all of the candidates. There was a bit of a buzz over the weekend over Huckabee’s article that will appear in a foreign policy mag soon, on other blogs- but I think the bloggers here were offline (usually the weekend posting and commenting is pretty slow.) I’m hoping one of the bloggers will cover this, as well as other candidates’ proposals, in more depth soon.

But I don’t think it’s unusual that Ron Paul’s policy is being critiqued, because he is taking a contrarian policy within the Republican party. I think it’s pretty natural then that a lot of people who are right leaning or center right, will need to see some pretty convincing evidence that his proposals would represent a good change, and so far I’m not seeing that.

And I am saying that it is NOT "unfair", it is the natural consequence of claiming to be revolutionary. That which is merely evolutionary is relatively low-risk — we already know mostly what it involves. That which claims to be revolutionary is high-risk. It’s advocates must legitimately be prepared to meet a higher standard of scrutiny.

And I have gotten tired of the fact that most of them refuse to even try to articulate specifics but feel free to constantly post seemingly endless streams of empty bromides, historically laughable assertions, and other BS. I’m just being honest and blunt about it, something that they claim to value.

Michael: While I commend D Richards on taking a much better tone than we have grown to expect from Paul supporters, it remains to be seen whether he can actually transition away from the empty bromides and sweeping assertions to engage detailed questions about what Ron Paul’s would REALLY mean in actual policy. Because if Ron Paul’s ideas can’t make the transition from vague theory to specific policy debates, then he doesn’t deserve to be treated as a serious candidate. It is that simple. If the candidate can only fund-raise and give speeches and can’t actually deal with the messy world of governing, then the candidate, to be honest, isn’t worth our time.

Under the Constitution the power to declare war rests exclusively with Congress.
It has been Dubia who insisted on being the emperor exeption.

well wrong, simplistic and was not the question.

"When will you stop with just repeating the talking points?" Jason, are you talking to me or someone else? You responded to more than one person.

I originally responded to your question about foriegn policy because I genuinely thought you wanted an answer. Now I see you are on the attack.  I was trying to answer your questions as accurately as possible. I cannot speak directly for Ron Paul because I am not a part of the campaign but am trying to infer his positions based on what I have read.

Every response to you is answered with "Bromides, Bromides, Platitudes, Bromides!!Stop it!!" As an assitant editor you are not helping to make this forum open and friendly.

I am not a part of the campaign but am trying to infer his positions based on what I have read.

That is my whole point: Ron Paul’s positions lack enough substance for us to gain any meaningful insight into what he would actually DO if elected. All we get are bromides and vague references to a “non-interventionist foreign policy” but without, you know, actually defining what that MEANS in policy terms.

I don’t see how it is an "attack" to challenge a candidate and his supporters to actually answer substantive questions about what he would DO if elected. This is especially necessary when the candidate and his supporters cast themselves as "revolutionary". Change involves risk and radical change involves HIGH risk. Paul is going to have to do better than the other candidates if he wants to justify more radical changes.

Is your idea of an "open and friendly" forum one where substance is eschewed in favor of just rote repetition of vague talking points?

Michael, some how your questions were lost in the shuffle.

1. Too late by then. I am not sure what you mean and as for Israel’s opponents taking it piece by piece, surely Israel is guilty of that, no?

2. I am suggesting Israel can support itself. When we give other countries guns and butter we expect something in return. Many people in Israel, while enjoying our support, resent it when it comes with strings attached. They would enjoy their sovereignty as much as we would.

I do not believe the US can stop fighting in Middle East and force our brand of democracy there. They must find their own path.

3. The US government already gives support to other countries that torture and kills dissenters. I have seen many graphs about the current level of support the US gives to Israel and its neighboring countries. The level of combined US support given the the neighboring countries EXCEED the level of support given to Israel. So we are furthering conflict in the Middle East. I am not suggesting we increase foreign aid to the Middle East. I am suggesting we stop supporting Israel AND its enemies.

Furthermore, I agree with Interested. The increase in executive powers started before the Bush administration. Congress has not declared war since WWII. The democratic controlled congress is hesitant to repel the executive branch power because they will enjoy the same "fruits" when a Democratic president is elected(my opinion).

Jason, I would like to make a correction to the terminology which has been used on this thread quite a few times.
I am not sure if it comes from R.Paul himself or his supporters.

But I am sure the "revolutionary" changes in the last decade or so had happened to the GOP.  There is nothing in traditional conservatism which endorses big government, huge spending and military interventionism, including the nation building.
I would rather call R.Paul a contra-revolutionary, who wants to restore the old days, the basic ideas of the original constitution( of course I am not at all sure if that is possible, i wonder if we already went too far away from it, to the point of no return).
I think it will be the right terminology for that movement.
And this is from the guy-me, who "came from the cold", and whose’ old country had seen plenty of both, too much, re-and contra-…..

For C Stanley and others like her who don’t like Ron’s foreign policy, I’m attaching a message he gave to Congress in 2002 regarding Iraq.  It should make people think.
BTW, of all the issues to prioritize as one makes choices from amongst the candidates, foreign policy should be the lowest one unless one is concerned the next President is a warmonger.
To be concerned about a foreign policy that preaches peace and cooperation and to make that a focal point for NOT considering a candidate, doesn’t make sense to me.  But anyway, here’s one of Ron’s messages:
If these questions don’t make Ron Paul doubters think and make you aware of the dangers of governmental aggression & hubris, then you all should not neglect to take your red pill tonight.Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002

QUESTIONS THAT WON’T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQSoon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked.  Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States? 12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world’s worst suspicions about the US, and isn’t this what bin Laden wanted?13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country? 14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president? 24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?35. Why don’t those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress? http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

All well and good, Guy, but I disagree with some of the points he made there (to take one example, when he says that the UN resolution violations provided no justification for the Iraq invasion, that’s bunk- first, because it makes no sense to say that other UN resolutions are violated so this means we shouldn’t do anything about that, and then even more relevant is the fact that these were violations of the terms of a cease fire agreement that we were party to- IOW, we were still at war with Saddam, no peace treaty had been signed.)

And anyway, this says nothing about how Paul thinks we should NOW handle the situation we’re in. Regardless of how people feel about the invasion of Iraq, it is the reality that we have to deal with- there aren’t any do overs.

To be concerned about a foreign policy that preaches peace and cooperation and to make that a focal point for NOT considering a candidate, doesn’t make sense to me

I’m curious if you are old enough to remember the Carter administration.

C. Stanley:  I’m glad, so far, that you and I have this back and forth.  It shows by the energy and time you put into these postings that these issues are important to you.  That’s good; they should be.  I like to debate, the livelier the better, but under certain circumstances.  1—–The debate has to have a purpose, i.e., to correct misunderstandings either party, including myself, might have about the issue in question.  In other words for both sides to abandon their false pre-conceived concepts when new evidence shows certain portions of their concepts are wrong.    Debates in which people just continuously present their side and have no wish to admit when they could be wrong are just exercises in hot air.  99% of all debates are structured this way and they’re tedious and annoying to me.    If either person doesn’t have this goal in mind, then the “debate” is a farce.  It just becomes a verbal exercise of “Yeah, but”    2—–I would like you to see Ron as I do, but you will also have to do research on your own to find out more about him.  I understand one of your premises so I understand, in part, where you’re coming from.  But I don’t have the time to continually type.  I also don’t have the time to respond to your style of “Yeah, but.”    3—–operating on this site is tedious.  It jumbles up my input for one thing.  If you don’t want to use my e-mail that’s up to you.  You could be a sincere person or you could be a sock-puppet.  Who knows.  But I don’t engage in long-term aggravation.  And this site is one that’s becoming that.  We didn’t become Ron Paul fans overnight.  We did our research, compared Ron to plenty of other people, read and compared their platforms, reviewed their voting records, looked into gov’t archives, etc, and easily found Ron to be the most consistent, most moral, best choice.  I can’t supply all the answers for you for obvious time reasons.     However, one site that should give you all the answers you’re looking for on every issue from abortion to foreign policy in a very concise, yet comprehensive & thorough, easy to understand format is http://www.harrybrowne.org/hb2000/stands/index.htm     I recommend this site because Harry Browne was one of Ron Paul’s inspirations and their thinking is 99% alike.  Plus, Harry was well known for his clear, concise writing style.  As clear as Ron’s point of views are, Harry is even more clear.  He cuts to the chase, there’s no ego or pomposity in his writing.  So all your relevant questions will be answered by this site and will save you the trouble of Google-hopping from one site or one document to another.    I’ve just saved you weeks if not months of work.  Take advantage of my largesse and be appreciative.  And yes, in anticipation of your next opposing question, Harry’s thoughts are from the year 2000, but they’re still relevant today.  So go over there, do your research so that instead of just asking questions - (asking questions is good) - you’ll also be able to find the answers on your own.  To answer your question of what should we do now — we get out of Iraq - now.    To answer your next inevitable, but actually good “Yeah, but” question, “But if we leave immediately, Iraq will be in ruins structurally & financially.  A civil war will start creating bloodshed.  Don’t we owe those people a shot at true democracy?  The surge seems to be working.  And what about our soldiers who have given their lives for freedom?”….and so forth and so on.It’s a good point you make.  We did the damage, isn’t it up to us to fix it?  Yes, it is.  But we, the American people didn’t do the damage.  Our government did — without our permission and all based on lies.  If we stay in Iraq, more soldiers will die.  If we leave, they live.  And they never died for Iraq’s freedom or because Iraq was a threat in the first place.  They died for oil, which is part of our national interest, and to which we should all be concerned about.    But sending young men into arenas of death under false pretenses is not in our national interest.  Even if oil today came down to $20 a bbl as opposed to it’s present price of around $100 a bbl, it still is not in our national interest to invade sovereign nations, even dictatorships, at the cost of spilled blood and guts.    Not only is it immoral, it just violates common sense.  With a country as rich & powerful as the USA, it’s not necessary to travel 30,000 miles to preemptively kill people in the name of democracy.    People who get killed by foreigners in the name of democracy are not going to be that crazy about American democracy when their mothers die from a soldier’s bullet.  Iraq is the Humpty Dumpty that can’t be put back together again by this administration’s armed forces staying in Iraq.  It can only get better for the Iraqi’s over time by the armed forces leaving.  Don’t forget, this administration is an occupier of a sovereign nation, not a liberator.  They occupy Iraq, not for the Iraq people, not for us, but for their lust for power and money.  Your premise is that you don’t think of us as thugs and that we, compared to other nations are more benign in the use of our power.    I understand your point of view.  I felt the same until February of 2006.  Then I started becoming aware of a general malaise spreading over America.  It was intangible, but it was real.  A feeling of “Something is wrong.  Something’s changed.  I can’t put my finger on it, but it’s there.”   Then I listened to radio to both the so-called “left” and “right” wing.  Because both wings were exceptionally biased, I had to do my own research to find my own answers in an objective way.    That’s when I discovered what I’ve already written about in #58.  Let me tell you something.  When one reviews old newspaper clippings, old official gov’t “smoking gun” type documents obtained by the FOIA, scan today’s newspapers, etc, — you wish you hadn’t.   You seem to be concerned that if we withdraw we’ll be seen as weak which will encourage our enemies to attack us all the more.  OK, fair point.  Except for the fact:  A—–If we stay, we will become weaker due to our resources becoming stretched thin as you’ve already mentioned.  B—–By withdrawing and then adopting a true honest foreign policy of leaving countries alone instead of imposing the gov’t’s will upon them, our bad image will be ameliorated tremendously once the gov’t proves they can be trusted again.  Foreigners, even in Iran, were on our side in the millions when 9-11 happened.  It can be that way again.  C—–The “war on terror” is a farce and an extremely effective & deceptive lie.  The threat of a dirty bomb or other acts of terror have been around for decades.  America has been an open country for decades.  It’s 9,000,000 square miles of open target.  We are so vulnerable to attack that thought can be very scary.    We have railroad lines, airports, utility stations, meeting places, gov’t buildings, parks, ports, public transportation, etc, that are open to attack - but here’s the kicker.  We haven’t been attacked by foreigners on our own soil, with the exception of Bin Laden (not Iraq, not Hussein) and by radical Americans.   Why not?  Because for foreigners overseas to become an effective terrorist group that can come here to do damage, they must have money, be very brave, very organized & very dedicated people.  They must have many resources and be able to escape detection by their local police and then by our intelligence agencies.  It costs 20 - 30 million dollars to buy a ready-made dirty suitcase bomb from the Russian mob.  It takes people with Ph.D’s in nuclear science to put one together if you don’t have the money.  Locations of fissionable substances are known to the CIA (we hope, unless the administration seeks to out more CIA operatives like Valerie Plame).    The movements & whereabouts of those substances, or even the suspected whereabouts, are tracked by satellite 24/7.   I admit, with Bush’s intervention, groups like Al Queda and anti-American groups are springing up like rabbits now overseas.  But it’s not because they hate or are jealous of the American way of life.  Sure, there are millions of people overseas who are jealous of us and think we’re a decadent society.    But are they so jealous and hateful (if we haven’t bombed them) that they’d take time away from making a living in their own country to now plot ways to destroy us?  Some would, but not enough to make them more of a threat then dying in a car crash - your research should come across stats on that as well.Putting foreign “dirty bomb” terrorists aside, what we have left would be terrorist groups that will use conventional bombs and dynamite for terror.  They can cause damage and loss of life, just like Bin Laden did in ’93 & ’98 to the WTC.    But they don’t and aren’t capable of doing enough damage and kill enough people to warrant elimination of Habeas Corpus, invasion of privacy, warrantless wire taps, home invasion by the FBI, watch lists, rendition, torture, tribunals instead of open courts, etc.  And yet, as much as these supposed terrorist groups hate us, we’ve not had a single incident since 9-11.  And it’s not because the intelligence agencies are that competent in preventing attack.  In fact, we’ve had more “terrorist” attacks on American soil done by student radical groups and American citizens over the years than by foreigners.  Yet, we’ve never had to suspend the Constitution.  And we still don’t have to.  D—–Our gov’t was never set up to be the police force of the world. (Re-read the Constitution, read the Federalist papers and the Anti-federalist papers.)  It was immoral to invade Iraq as well as the other countries we’ve invaded and bombed over the years without provocation besides Vietnam.  It’d be immoral to stay.    All the countries the gov’t has invaded deserve reparations. Unfortunately, for the gov’t to do that would mean they would have to steal more money from the American people, or print more money to make reparations.  And that would make things worse, especially if reparation were under control of the same federal government that got us into our foreign policy and financial mess in the first place.   However, for people who really want to make reparations, there is nothing to prevent American citizens, acting on their own behalf, to go to Iraqi after we withdraw to help out the people there.  Would you like to go?  There are Americans there already as private citizens trying to help.  You can help them help the Iraqi’s if you’d like.  In fact, and this sums up Ron Paul, any American citizen will be free to do what he/she wants to do without gov’t intervention or surveillance, any way he wants, just as long as he doesn’t commit force or fraud on another.  It’s gov’t out, and individual freedom to choose, in.  Bye bye Big Brother, hello transparency and individual freedom - the way you and I want it - once again.  Now here’s where you’re next “Yeah, but” is:  “But what if terrorism is really a deadly threat.  Shouldn’t the gov’t have the right to invade my privacy in order to capture truly dangerous terrorists?  I, personally (and 99% of most Libertarians would disagree with me on this) believe that if any type of terrorist threat became that powerful, then the gov’t absolutely would have the right to invade my privacy.  But the problem is they’re already doing that.  “But they’re doing that to prevent terrorism from getting to critical mass.  It’s better to have a smoking gun over there than to have a mushroom cloud over here,” you would say.    That seems to make sense, except:  It used to be that any private information gathered by the NSA on an innocent American had to be destroyed.  Now they don’t have to do that anymore — and we’re not even under any kind of real threat despite what the government claims.    Your “Yeah, but”: “OK, they have this info, so what, you’re innocent!”  True — but it’s the government who isn’t innocent.    You believe they’re trustworthy.  You believe they have our interests at heart.  You believe that only a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the 535 members of Congress, or the local judges, or the FBI, or your local cops are corrupt or could ever become corrupt.    You believe we have an effective checks & balances system that effectively prevents the “slippery slope” syndrome from getting out of hand.  And if the “slippery slope” process does come into play, it only happens an acceptable “once in awhile.  No big deal.”  You believe that when push comes to shove, the majority of politicians would never, never, never take advantage of any paper-mache excuse to exchange our freedoms, our liberties, our natural rights for 26 pieces of silver.      So did I…so did I.  

ok, just for the record, this site jumbled up my input once again.  I wrote our my piece on my pc, inputted it into the comment box where it looked fine.  The many spaces between paragraphs were supposed to make this piece readable.

I regret the way it looks.  Sorry.

ok, trying one more time:

C. Stanley:  I’m glad, so far, that you and I have this back and forth.  It shows by the energy and time you put into these postings that these issues are important to you.  That’s good; they should be.  I like to debate, the livelier the better, but under certain circumstances.  1—–The debate has to have a purpose, i.e., to correct misunderstandings either party, including myself, might have about the issue in question.  In other words for both sides to abandon their false pre-conceived concepts when new evidence shows certain portions of their concepts are wrong.    Debates in which people just continuously present their side and have no wish to admit when they could be wrong are just exercises in hot air.  99% of all debates are structured this way and they’re tedious and annoying to me.    If either person doesn’t have this goal in mind, then the “debate” is a farce.  It just becomes a verbal exercise of “Yeah, but”    2—–I would like you to see Ron as I do, but you will also have to do research on your own to find out more about him.  I understand one of your premises so I understand, in part, where you’re coming from.  But I don’t have the time to continually type.  I also don’t have the time to respond to your style of “Yeah, but.”    3—–operating on this site is tedious.  It jumbles up my input for one thing.  If you don’t want to use my e-mail that’s up to you.  You could be a sincere person or you could be a sock-puppet.  Who knows.  But I don’t engage in long-term aggravation.  And this site is one that’s becoming that.  We didn’t become Ron Paul fans overnight.  We did our research, compared Ron to plenty of other people, read and compared their platforms, reviewed their voting records, looked into gov’t archives, etc, and easily found Ron to be the most consistent, most moral, best choice.  I can’t supply all the answers for you for obvious time reasons.     However, one site that should give you all the answers you’re looking for on every issue from abortion to foreign policy in a very concise, yet comprehensive & thorough, easy to understand format is http://www.harrybrowne.org/hb2000/stands/index.htm     I recommend this site because Harry Browne was one of Ron Paul’s inspirations and their thinking is 99% alike.  Plus, Harry was well known for his clear, concise writing style.  As clear as Ron’s point of views are, Harry is even more clear.  He cuts to the chase, there’s no ego or pomposity in his writing.  So all your relevant questions will be answered by this site and will save you the trouble of Google-hopping from one site or one document to another.    I’ve just saved you weeks if not months of work.  Take advantage of my largesse and be appreciative.  And yes, in anticipation of your next opposing question, Harry’s thoughts are from the year 2000, but they’re still relevant today.  So go over there, do your research so that instead of just asking questions - (asking questions is good) - you’ll also be able to find the answers on your own.  To answer your question of what should we do now — we get out of Iraq - now.    To answer your next inevitable, but actually good “Yeah, but” question, “But if we leave immediately, Iraq will be in ruins structurally & financially.  A civil war will start creating bloodshed.  Don’t we owe those people a shot at true democracy?  The surge seems to be working.  And what about our soldiers who have given their lives for freedom?”….and so forth and so on.It’s a good point you make.  We did the damage, isn’t it up to us to fix it?  Yes, it is.  But we, the American people didn’t do the damage.  Our government did — without our permission and all based on lies.  If we stay in Iraq, more soldiers will die.  If we leave, they live.  And they never died for Iraq’s freedom or because Iraq was a threat in the first place.  They died for oil, which is part of our national interest, and to which we should all be concerned about.    But sending young men into arenas of death under false pretenses is not in our national interest.  Even if oil today came down to $20 a bbl as opposed to it’s present price of around $100 a bbl, it still is not in our national interest to invade sovereign nations, even dictatorships, at the cost of spilled blood and guts.    Not only is it immoral, it just violates common sense.  With a country as rich & powerful as the USA, it’s not necessary to travel 30,000 miles to preemptively kill people in the name of democracy.    People who get killed by foreigners in the name of democracy are not going to be that crazy about American democracy when their mothers die from a soldier’s bullet.  Iraq is the Humpty Dumpty that can’t be put back together again by this administration’s armed forces staying in Iraq.  It can only get better for the Iraqi’s over time by the armed forces leaving.  Don’t forget, this administration is an occupier of a sovereign nation, not a liberator.  They occupy Iraq, not for the Iraq people, not for us, but for their lust for power and money.  Your premise is that you don’t think of us as thugs and that we, compared to other nations are more benign in the use of our power.    I understand your point of view.  I felt the same until February of 2006.  Then I started becoming aware of a general malaise spreading over America.  It was intangible, but it was real.  A feeling of “Something is wrong.  Something’s changed.  I can’t put my finger on it, but it’s there.”   Then I listened to radio to both the so-called “left” and “right” wing.  Because both wings were exceptionally biased, I had to do my own research to find my own answers in an objective way.    That’s when I discovered what I’ve already written about in #58.  Let me tell you something.  When one reviews old newspaper clippings, old official gov’t “smoking gun” type documents obtained by the FOIA, scan today’s newspapers, etc, — you wish you hadn’t.   You seem to be concerned that if we withdraw we’ll be seen as weak which will encourage our enemies to attack us all the more.  OK, fair point.  Except for the fact:  A—–If we stay, we will become weaker due to our resources becoming stretched thin as you’ve already mentioned.  B—–By withdrawing and then adopting a true honest foreign policy of leaving countries alone instead of imposing the gov’t’s will upon them, our bad image will be ameliorated tremendously once the gov’t proves they can be trusted again.  Foreigners, even in Iran, were on our side in the millions when 9-11 happened.  It can be that way again.  C—–The “war on terror” is a farce and an extremely effective & deceptive lie.  The threat of a dirty bomb or other acts of terror have been around for decades.  America has been an open country for decades.  It’s 9,000,000 square miles of open target.  We are so vulnerable to attack that thought can be very scary.    We have railroad lines, airports, utility stations, meeting places, gov’t buildings, parks, ports, public transportation, etc, that are open to attack - but here’s the kicker.  We haven’t been attacked by foreigners on our own soil, with the exception of Bin Laden (not Iraq, not Hussein) and by radical Americans.   Why not?  Because for foreigners overseas to become an effective terrorist group that can come here to do damage, they must have money, be very brave, very organized & very dedicated people.  They must have many resources and be able to escape detection by their local police and then by our intelligence agencies.  It costs 20 - 30 million dollars to buy a ready-made dirty suitcase bomb from the Russian mob.  It takes people with Ph.D’s in nuclear science to put one together if you don’t have the money.  Locations of fissionable substances are known to the CIA (we hope, unless the administration seeks to out more CIA operatives like Valerie Plame).    The movements & whereabouts of those substances, or even the suspected whereabouts, are tracked by satellite 24/7.   I admit, with Bush’s intervention, groups like Al Queda and anti-American groups are springing up like rabbits now overseas.  But it’s not because they hate or are jealous of the American way of life.  Sure, there are millions of people overseas who are jealous of us and think we’re a decadent society.    But are they so jealous and hateful (if we haven’t bombed them) that they’d take time away from making a living in their own country to now plot ways to destroy us?  Some would, but not enough to make them more of a threat then dying in a car crash - your research should come across stats on that as well.Putting foreign “dirty bomb” terrorists aside, what we have left would be terrorist groups that will use conventional bombs and dynamite for terror.  They can cause damage and loss of life, just like Bin Laden did in ’93 & ’98 to the WTC.    But they don’t and aren’t capable of doing enough damage and kill enough people to warrant elimination of Habeas Corpus, invasion of privacy, warrantless wire taps, home invasion by the FBI, watch lists, rendition, torture, tribunals instead of open courts, etc.  And yet, as much as these supposed terrorist groups hate us, we’ve not had a single incident since 9-11.  And it’s not because the intelligence agencies are that competent in preventing attack.  In fact, we’ve had more “terrorist” attacks on American soil done by student radical groups and American citizens over the years than by foreigners.  Yet, we’ve never had to suspend the Constitution.  And we still don’t have to.  D—–Our gov’t was never set up to be the police force of the world. (Re-read the Constitution, read the Federalist papers and the Anti-federalist papers.)  It was immoral to invade Iraq as well as the other countries we’ve invaded and bombed over the years without provocation besides Vietnam.  It’d be immoral to stay.    All the countries the gov’t has invaded deserve reparations. Unfortunately, for the gov’t to do that would mean they would have to steal more money from the American people, or print more money to make reparations.  And that would make things worse, especially if reparation were under control of the same federal government that got us into our foreign policy and financial mess in the first place.   However, for people who really want to make reparations, there is nothing to prevent American citizens, acting on their own behalf, to go to Iraqi after we withdraw to help out the people there.  Would you like to go?  There are Americans there already as private citizens trying to help.  You can help them help the Iraqi’s if you’d like.  In fact, and this sums up Ron Paul, any American citizen will be free to do what he/she wants to do without gov’t intervention or surveillance, any way he wants, just as long as he doesn’t commit force or fraud on another.  It’s gov’t out, and individual freedom to choose, in.  Bye bye Big Brother, hello transparency and individual freedom - the way you and I want it - once again.  Now here’s where you’re next “Yeah, but” is:  “But what if terrorism is really a deadly threat.  Shouldn’t the gov’t have the right to invade my privacy in order to capture truly dangerous terrorists?  I, personally (and 99% of most Libertarians would disagree with me on this) believe that if any type of terrorist threat became that powerful, then the gov’t absolutely would have the right to invade my privacy.  But the problem is they’re already doing that.  “But they’re doing that to prevent terrorism from getting to critical mass.  It’s better to have a smoking gun over there than to have a mushroom cloud over here,” you would say.    That seems to make sense, except:  It used to be that any private information gathered by the NSA on an innocent American had to be destroyed.  Now they don’t have to do that anymore — and we’re not even under any kind of real threat despite what the government claims.    Your “Yeah, but”: “OK, they have this info, so what, you’re innocent!”  True — but it’s the government who isn’t innocent.    You believe they’re trustworthy.  You believe they have our interests at heart.  You believe that only a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the 535 members of Congress, or the local judges, or the FBI, or your local cops are corrupt or could ever become corrupt.    You believe we have an effective checks & balances system that effectively prevents the “slippery slope” syndrome from getting out of hand.  And if the “slippery slope” process does come into play, it only happens an acceptable “once in awhile.  No big deal.”  You believe that when push comes to shove, the majority of politicians would never, never, never take advantage of any paper-mache excuse to exchange our freedoms, our liberties, our natural rights for 26 pieces of silver.      So did I…so did I.  

OK, trying something new:

C. Stanley: I’m glad, so far, that you and I have this back and forth. It shows by the energy and time you put into these postings that these issues are important to you. That’s good; they should be.

I like to debate, the livelier the better, but under certain circumstances.

1—–The debate has to have a purpose, i.e., to correct misunderstandings either party, including myself, might have about the issue in question. In other words for both sides to abandon their false pre-conceived concepts when new evidence shows certain portions of their concepts are wrong.

Debates in which people just continuously present their side and have no wish to admit when they could be wrong are just exercises in hot air. 99% of all debates are structured this way and they’re tedious and annoying to me.

If either person doesn’t have this goal in mind, then the “debate” is a farce. It just becomes a verbal exercise of “Yeah, but”

2—–I would like you to see Ron as I do, but you will also have to do research on your own to find out more about him. I understand one of your premises so I understand, in part, where you’re coming from. But I don’t have the time to continually type. I also don’t have the time to respond to your style of “Yeah, but.”

3—–operating on this site is tedious. It jumbles up my input for one thing. If you don’t want to use my e-mail that’s up to you. You could be a sincere person or you could be a sock-puppet. Who knows. But I don’t engage in long-term aggravation. And this site is one that’s becoming that.

We didn’t become Ron Paul fans overnight. We did our research, compared Ron to plenty of other people, read and compared their platforms, reviewed their voting records, looked into gov’t archives, etc, and easily found Ron to be the most consistent, most moral, best choice. I can’t supply all the answers for you for obvious time reasons.

However, one site that should give you all the answers you’re looking for on every issue from abortion to foreign policy in a very concise, yet comprehensive & thorough, easy to understand format is http://www.harrybrowne.org/hb2000/stands/index.htm

I recommend this site because Harry Browne was one of Ron Paul’s inspirations and their thinking is 99% alike. Plus, Harry was well known for his clear, concise writing style. As clear as Ron’s point of views are, Harry is even more clear. He cuts to the chase, there’s no ego or pomposity in his writing.

So all your relevant questions will be answered by this site and will save you the trouble of Google-hopping from one site or one document to another.

I’ve just saved you weeks if not months of work. Take advantage of my largesse and be appreciative. And yes, in anticipation of your next opposing question, Harry’s thoughts are from the year 2000, but they’re still relevant today.

So go over there, do your research so that instead of just asking questions - (asking questions is good) - you’ll also be able to find the answers on your own.

To answer your question of what should we do now — we get out of Iraq - now.

To answer your next inevitable, but actually good “Yeah, but” question, “But if we leave immediately, Iraq will be in ruins structurally & financially. A civil war will start creating bloodshed. Don’t we owe those people a shot at true democracy? The surge seems to be working. And what about our soldiers who have given their lives for freedom?”….and so forth and so on.

It’s a good point you make. We did the damage, isn’t it up to us to fix it? Yes, it is. But we, the American people didn’t do the damage. Our government did — without our permission and all based on lies.

If we stay in Iraq, more soldiers will die. If we leave, they live. And they never died for Iraq’s freedom or because Iraq was a threat in the first place. They died for oil, which is part of our national interest, and to which we should all be concerned about.

But sending young men into arenas of death under false pretenses is not in our national interest. Even if oil today came down to $20 a bbl as opposed to it’s present price of around $100 a bbl, it still is not in our national interest to invade sovereign nations, even dictatorships, at the cost of spilled blood and guts.

Not only is it immoral, it just violates common sense. With a country as rich & powerful as the USA, it’s not necessary to travel 30,000 miles to preemptively kill people in the name of democracy.

People who get killed by foreigners in the name of democracy are not going to be that crazy about American democracy when their mothers die from a soldier’s bullet.

Iraq is the Humpty Dumpty that can’t be put back together again by this administration’s armed forces staying in Iraq. It can only get better for the Iraqi’s over time by the armed forces leaving. Don’t forget, this administration is an occupier of a sovereign nation, not a liberator. They occupy Iraq, not for the Iraq people, not for us, but for their lust for power and money.

Your premise is that you don’t think of us as thugs and that we, compared to other nations are more benign in the use of our power.

I understand your point of view. I felt the same until February of 2006. Then I started becoming aware of a general malaise spreading over America. It was intangible, but it was real. A feeling of “Something is wrong. Something’s changed. I can’t put my finger on it, but it’s there.”

Then I listened to radio to both the so-called “left” and “right” wing. Because both wings were exceptionally biased, I had to do my own research to find my own answers in an objective way.

That’s when I discovered what I’ve already written about in #58. Let me tell you something. When one reviews old newspaper clippings, old official gov’t “smoking gun” type documents obtained by the FOIA, scan today’s newspapers, etc, — you wish you hadn’t.

You seem to be concerned that if we withdraw we’ll be seen as weak which will encourage our enemies to attack us all the more.

OK, fair point. Except for the fact:

A—–If we stay, we will become weaker due to our resources becoming stretched thin as you’ve already mentioned.

B—–By withdrawing and then adopting a true honest foreign policy of leaving countries alone instead of imposing the gov’t’s will upon them, our bad image will be ameliorated tremendously once the gov’t proves they can be trusted again. Foreigners, even in Iran, were on our side in the millions when 9-11 happened. It can be that way again.

C—–The “war on terror” is a farce and an extremely effective & deceptive lie. The threat of a dirty bomb or other acts of terror have been around for decades. America has been an open country for decades. It’s 9,000,000 square miles of open target. We are so vulnerable to attack that thought can be very scary.

We have railroad lines, airports, utility stations, meeting places, gov’t buildings, parks, ports, public transportation, etc, that are open to attack - but here’s the kicker. We haven’t been attacked by foreigners on our own soil, with the exception of Bin Laden (not Iraq, not Hussein) and by radical Americans.

Why not? Because for foreigners overseas to become an effective terrorist group that can come here to do damage, they must have money, be very brave, very organized & very dedicated people. They must have many resources and be able to escape detection by their local police and then by our intelligence agencies.

It costs 20 - 30 million dollars to buy a ready-made dirty suitcase bomb from the Russian mob. It takes people with Ph.D’s in nuclear science to put one together if you don’t have the money. Locations of fissionable substances are known to the CIA (we hope, unless the administration seeks to out more CIA operatives like Valerie Plame).

The movements & whereabouts of those substances, or even the suspected whereabouts, are tracked by satellite 24/7.

I admit, with Bush’s intervention, groups like Al Queda and anti-American groups are springing up like rabbits now overseas. But it’s not because they hate or are jealous of the American way of life. Sure, there are millions of people overseas who are jealous of us and think we’re a decadent society.

But are they so jealous and hateful (if we haven’t bombed them) that they’d take time away from making a living in their own country to now plot ways to destroy us?

Some would, but not enough to make them more of a threat then dying in a car crash - your research should come across stats on that as well.

Putting foreign “dirty bomb” terrorists aside, what we have left would be terrorist groups that will use conventional bombs and dynamite for terror. They can cause damage and loss of life, just like Bin Laden did in ’93 & ’98 to the WTC.

But they don’t and aren’t capable of doing enough damage and kill enough people to warrant elimination of Habeas Corpus, invasion of privacy, warrantless wire taps, home invasion by the FBI, watch lists, rendition, torture, tribunals instead of open courts, etc.

And yet, as much as these supposed terrorist groups hate us, we’ve not had a single incident since 9-11. And it’s not because the intelligence agencies are that competent in preventing attack.

In fact, we’ve had more “terrorist” attacks on American soil done by student radical groups and American citizens over the years than by foreigners. Yet, we’ve never had to suspend the Constitution. And we still don’t have to.

D—–Our gov’t was never set up to be the police force of the world. (Re-read the Constitution, read the Federalist papers and the Anti-federalist papers.) It was immoral to invade Iraq as well as the other countries we’ve invaded and bombed over the years without provocation besides Vietnam. It’d be immoral to stay.

All the countries the gov’t has invaded deserve reparations. Unfortunately, for the gov’t to do that would mean they would have to steal more money from the American people, or print more money to make reparations. And that would make things worse, especially if reparation were under control of the same federal government that got us into our foreign policy and financial mess in the first place.

However, for people who really want to make reparations, there is nothing to prevent American citizens, acting on their own behalf, to go to Iraqi after we withdraw to help out the people there. Would you like to go? There are Americans there already as private citizens trying to help. You can help them help the Iraqi’s if you’d like.

In fact, and this sums up Ron Paul, any American citizen will be free to do what he/she wants to do without gov’t intervention or surveillance, any way he wants, just as long as he doesn’t commit force or fraud on another. It’s gov’t out, and individual freedom to choose, in. Bye bye Big Brother, hello transparency and individual freedom - the way you and I want it - once again.

Now here’s where you’re next “Yeah, but” is: “But what if terrorism is really a deadly threat. Shouldn’t the gov’t have the right to invade my privacy in order to capture truly dangerous terrorists? I, personally (and 99% of most Libertarians would disagree with me on this) believe that if any type of terrorist threat became that powerful, then the gov’t absolutely would have the right to invade my privacy.

But the problem is they’re already doing that. “But they’re doing that to prevent terrorism from getting to critical mass. It’s better to have a smoking gun over there than to have a mushroom cloud over here,” you would say.

That seems to make sense, except: It used to be that any private information gathered by the NSA on an innocent American had to be destroyed. Now they don’t have to do that anymore — and we’re not even under any kind of real threat despite what the government claims.

Your “Yeah, but”: “OK, they have this info, so what, you’re innocent!” True — but it’s the government who isn’t innocent.

You believe they’re trustworthy. You believe they have our interests at heart. You believe that only a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the 535 members of Congress, or the local judges, or the FBI, or your local cops are corrupt or could ever become corrupt.

You believe we have an effective checks & balances system that effectively prevents the “slippery slope” syndrome from getting out of hand. And if the “slippery slope” process does come into play, it only happens an acceptable “once in awhile. No big deal.”

You believe that when push comes to shove, the majority of politicians would never, never, never take advantage of any paper-mache excuse to exchange our freedoms, our liberties, our natural rights for 26 pieces of silver.

So did I…so did I.

"Karri, I thank God that our founding fathers didn’t have the attitude that is being displayed by many of Ron Paul’s followers. " 
C Stanly, I am no so much concerned with the followers as the leader.  I am sure the capacity to reason was not so great in the soldiers of the American Revolution, as it was in the commanding officers.