I think Paul should now move to conceal his fundraising totals until the FEC Report so Mitt Romney won’t throw in just enough of his own money to claim that he beat him.

Ron Paul is the only honest guy running.   He gets my vote.

<< he needs Republicans to change their views, in many regards and especially with regards to foreign policy, completely. >>

Wrong! This is the core of your long standing misapprehension of what is really happening.  The neocons are the ones who highjacked the RP to implement their agenda for world empire.  DO not allow yourself to be confused into thinking that they represent the "true" Republican values.  The neocons only succeeded in fact, by – among many other things - encouraging Dubia to campaign on a promise of "humble foreign relations and no nation building".   It was of courrse a boldfaced lie.

Such a classic non-interventionist platform is a core Republican one which has brought many previous Republican presidents to the White House.  Dr. Paul is simply offering to bring the Republican party back to its long held core principles.  Among the average Republican this is resonating far more than you realize.

Let’s wait and see, shall we?

Such a classic non-interventionist platform is a core Republican one which has brought many previous Republican presidents to the White House. Dr. Paul is simply offering to bring the Republican party back to its long held core principles.

Long standing since when: Ike? There hasn’t been a Republican president with your desired foreign policy outlook since the 60’s.

I can’t even think of one from the 60s, Dustin. Who are you thinking of, Eisenhower? If so, I would disagree even then. On foreign policy (as with many other issue areas), Eisenhower was a pragmatic realist rather than a naive purist like Paul. For example, Eisenhower helped create and expand NATO while Paul’s position (to the extent that one can derive a coherent position from the mish-mash of half-remembered quotations from romanticized prior ages that forms the foundation of most Paul policy positions) is generically opposed to such alliances on spec.

Lest we forget, someone like Barry Goldwater was a libertarian conservative, but a hawk with regards to foreign policy issues.

The reason for this controversy, though, is that recent Republicans have adopted a different kind of interventionist policy than the policies of realpolitik (which had been embraced by both parties throughout the Cold War.) The Bush doctrine of preemption was new, as was Bush’s break with his previous pledge to not do ‘nation building’. That sort of thing had previously been associated with liberal hawks, and denounced by Republicans for the most part. The neocons changed that by leaving the Democratic party and finding their niche in the current administration.

Meanwhile, a certain element of the GOP (libertarian, noninterventionists) have never been keen on any of the interventionist policies, and least of all on the kind that we’re now engaging in. Add to that the fact that the Bush administration didn’t plan for this policy well and didn’t conduct it effectively, and you have a group of very unhappy people.

I think they’re wrong about rapidly reversing course to a non-interventionist policy because America will still be judged by its past interventionism instead of future policies of ‘minding our own business.’ In fact, I think it will be used to club us over the head from both sides, as we will be simultaneously criticized for having ‘broken’ Iraq and then for lacking the resolve to ‘fix it’. Long and short of it is, America is not Switzerland, never will be, and never can be. It would take centuries on noninterventionism before we’d ever be ‘forgiven’ for our past- if even then.

And certainly, whether the Paulites are right or wrong about the effectiveness of the policies he advocates, they are wrong to assert that theirs is THE true conservative stance. Michael and Dustin are absolutely correct to point out that the Republican party has never represented that sort of foreign policy in modern history. What they are advocating is one particular version of conservatism (libertarian, small, constricted government conservatism) but that’s never been a description of the Republican foreign policy platform.

Ahh, they’re baaaaack! Hi again, guys!

Do you know why Paul will likely never get the nomination OR the presidency? Because he comes off as kooky and his supporters come off as cultish. It doesn’t matter what the merits of his platform are, he creeps out John and Jane Q. Public. You can’t get past that, especially with a hostile media helping fuel the story because it’s interesting.

Quite right. I can appreciate the frustration of trying to bring something truly new to the two-party system. In fact, even when I don’t agree with the platform, I think it’s extremely healthy for that to happen. However, you will get nowhere insisting that Ron Paul is a true Republican and the others should run third party. Parties define themselves, and right now it’s Ron Paul who isn’t the mainstream candidate. It would be like a segregationist Democrat running as a "true Democrat" because the Southern Democrats were racists. That’s not who the Democratic party is anymore, and Ron Paul is not what the Republican Party is anymore. Nothing wrong with that, but you should get over it.

That said, I do understand WHY Ron Paul won’t go third party. Running nationally as a third party candidate virtually guarantees failure in a system that stops just short of forbidding third parties. If he could get the Republican nomination (which I see as unlikely, being that he’s not first tier in the serious polls) he could probably pull off many more votes based on being the Party Candidate. At minimum, he’d force a change in direction of the party, which I actually think would be very healthy.

Paul’s foreign policy reminds me of nothing so much as Robert A. Taft, who also lost the Republican nomination to a guy with a much more aggressive foreign policy against the major international threat of our times.

So, who’s Willkie in this analogy?

In a nutshell, Robert, you’ve described a problem I have with the ‘Ron Paul Revolution’:

the sheer pleasure of hope with total abandon offered by this remarkable man.

Engaging in ‘hope with total abandon’ isn’t exactly realism in my book. Paul’s followers seem so infatuated with him that they won’t engage in discussion of whether or not his policies can actually work in the real world. If that makes me jaded in your view, so be it.

Robert: there’s a difference between idealism which uses realistic means of acheiving its ends, and pie in the sky idealism. One reason that I feel that the Ron Paul movement is in the latter camp is because instead of focusing on the ideas, people are focused on the man and also tend to counter any criticism by telling everyone that they’re just too jaded to see the ‘truth’. If the ideas have merit, then sell the ideas to create a movement with not just passion, but depth (and yes, I understand that the fundraising is impressive- but still, it shows that his supporters are more willing to give than are supporters of other candidates- it still doesn’t show that there are a larger number of supporters which will translate into the votes needed for the nomination.)

And where would we be today if Thomas jefferson and the frames of the Declaration of Independence had been realists?

How about Albert Einstein for that matter, or the Wright brothers, or Stephen Hawking?

On all points you’ve mentioned here they either are (in the case of Hawking) or were realists. I’m not well versed on the Wright brothers motivations or methods but I do know that Jefferson, Einstein and Hawking were/are all men of the scientific method. Quite simply there isn’t room for "pie in the sky" idealism in that sort of mind. Too rational.

Being realists will almost certainly condemn us to a life of mediocrity my friends. Is that really what we want?

Actually yes: I want to live in uninteresting times.

Robert: if it is true as you assert that Paul’s followers are actually well versed on the issues, then they sure don’t do a good job of focusing on those issues in their discussions. Look at comments #2, #3, and #4 in this very thread, for instance:

Joel: The Republican party is essentially dead without Ron Paul.
Ray: Ron Paul is the only honest guy running.
Beau: Ron Paul IS the Republican Party.

C Stanley, why don’t you ask Joel to prove his point.  I have a sneaking suspiscion that he has some well thought out reasons.OK, that’s it, now I’m really gone.  Places to go and all that …

C Stanley, why don’t you ask Joel to prove his point.  I have a sneaking suspiscion that he has some well thought out reasons.OK, that’s it, now I’m really gone.  Places to go and all that …

Let me guess: other site’s to swarm when they mention Dear Doctor?

You completely missed my point.  By the standards of their day, the persuit of their goals was completely unrealistic.

There you go using that word "unrealistic" again. 

This had nothing to do with idealism, but everything to do with the pursuit of an "impossible dream" in the face of daunting odds.

Or, more likely, it has to do with your desire to place Ron Paul on the same pedestal as some of history’s giants and then use that as a club to stifle his critics. 

If you hadn’t run off, Robert, I’d respond to your question by saying, "Why is it my responsibility to ASK anyone to prove their points?"

Your assertion, your burden of proof. You decide to make comments without justifying them, you risk people not taking you very seriously.

Nihat: I never said nor implied that realism and idealism are mutually exclusive. I simply pointed out that some idealists keep their goals in the realm of reality and others don’t, and I gave reasons for my judgment that the Paulites don’t fall into the first category.

Jason, I respectfully disagree. Paul is not isolationist. He is for active international trade and active diplomacy. The isolationist I know of is N.Korea for example. I wonder how much the last decade of neocon reprogramming corrupted many brains( and I know it is not you, or Christine, you guys are basically on the same page with me as far as Iraq war etc. is concerned )that we think we should bomb anybody who refuses to submit to our will. More on R.Paul in his own words here ,  and interesting analyses about neocon’ view on R.Paul  here

Nihat: I don’t disagree that those past leaders being discussed were somewhat revolutionary (either literally or figuratively.) But as you point out, "at the end of the day, they had established new realities." My criticism of the Paulites here is that they are not doing what would be necessary to establish a new reality, and they seem to have no real gameplan for doing so other than by announcing over and over again that their vision of reality is true, while the rest of us point out that it doesn’t mesh with actual reality.

<< If you hadn’t run off, Robert, I’d respond to your question by saying, "Why is it my responsibility to ASK anyone to prove their points?" >>

My GOd, but you are touchy.

If I state an opion, you can respond in three ways:

1. "Agreed" – we go on the the next topic.
2. "Why is that?" – I reply with my reasoned explanation.
3. "F**k off!" – I give up hope of meaningful discourse.

Now what is so difficult or offensive about that?

Back to work.

Guy: first, I’m a her, not a him. And I have no qualms with praising Paul’s consistency. Competency for the office of presidency requires more than that though, and I simply don’t agree with several key points in his policy positions.

Beau (4) is right on.  Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Guy: So, in your view, someone who is an undecided voter at this stage of the game isn’t allowed to state why they oppose certain candidates or disagree with them? I haven’t made a final decision on who I will support, but I don’t support Paul because I disagree pretty strongly with his foreign policy views. I’ve discussed it a bit here and elsewhere as to why I disagree on that.

Andrew Sullivan Endorses Ron Paul
 
<<"But the deeper reason to support Ron Paul is a simple one. The great forgotten principles of the current Republican party are freedom and toleration. Paul’s federalism, his deep suspicion of Washington power, his resistance to government spending, debt and inflation, his ability to grasp that not all human problems are soluble, least of all by government: these are principles that made me a conservative in the first place. No one in the current field articulates them as clearly and understands them as deeply as Paul. He is a man of faith who nonetheless sees a clear line between religion and politics. More than all this, he has somehow ignited a new movement of those who love freedom and want to rescue it from the do-gooding bromides of the left to the Christianist meddling of the right. The Paulites’ enthusiasm for liberty, their unapologetic defense of core conservative principles, their awareness that in the new millennium, these principles of small government, self-reliance, cultural pluralism, and a humble foreign policy are more necessary than ever – no lover of liberty can stand by and not join them.">>

Couldn’t have put it better myself …

Hmmm, this thread really got me interested in Ron Paul.

While I think C. Stanley is holding Paul (or Paulites) to an unusually high standard by this:

…they are not doing what would be necessary to establish a new reality, and they seem to have no real gameplan for doing so other than by announcing over and over again that their vision of reality is true…

A transition to ‘a humble [non-interventionist American] foreign policy‘ appears to be a truly revolutionary task for the world today. The entanglements are such that we’d have even non-American actors opposing such a change, I suppose. But imho, it’s a worthy ideal nonetheless.

Again my post got lost for the 3rd time!  My RAM is affecting my pc.  Hope this one gets posted.  Mispelling those digital images with the lines crossing through them isn’t helping either.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

More empty bromides….

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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

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.

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.

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?

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

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 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.  

"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.