Ron Paul and Michele Bachman square off

I have to agree with Ron Paul..the time has come for us to end being the world police and bullies to other countries..republicans and democrats alike always see war as the problem solver where as in reality it's what causes the problem to get worse..it doesn't mean that we are weak, it just means we don't give a chit anymore..blow each other up if that's what you want..and as for Israel we owe them nothing..they can fight their own war..
----------------------------------

Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann clashed over a nuclear Iran in Thursday's Fox News debate.

Thursday’s Fox News debate in Iowa came to a head when Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann clashed heatedly over foreign policy. The segment came after Fox News host Bret Baier tried repeatedly to trip up congressman Paul with hypothetical questions on intelligence of a fully nuclear Iran.

Ron Paul’s clear and compelling case against a war with Iran irritated his Fox News hosts (who have already expressed their disdain for Paul) and painted him in stark contrast to his Republican rival

The National Defense Authorization Act is the Greatest Threat to Civil Liberties Americans Face
E.D. Kain
Contributor
The greatest threat to America, Paul warned was not a nuclear Iran but rather an American overreaction to the perceived threat of Iranian nukes.

Bachmann called Paul’s comments dangerous.

“With all due respect to Ron Paul, I think I have never heard a more dangerous answer for American security than the one that we just heard from Ron Paul,” Bachmann said. “I’ll tell you the reason why, the reason why I would say that is because we know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally Israel off the face of the map and they stated they will use it against the United States of America. Look no further than the Iranian constitution, which states unequivocally that their mission is to extend jihad across the world and eventually to set up for worldwide caliphate. we would be fools to ignore their purpose and their plan.”

“Obviously, I would like to see a lot less nuclear weapons,” Paul responded. “I don’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I would like to reduce them because there would be less chance of war. But to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same, this is dangerous talk. Yeah, there are some radicals. But they don’t come here to kill us because we’re free and prosperous. Do they go to Switzerland and Sweden? That is absurd.”

“They come here and explicitly explain it to us,” he continued. “The CIA has explained it to us. It said they come here and they want to do us harm because we are bombing them! What is the whole world about the drone being in Iran? And we’re begging and pleading and how are we going to start a war to get the drone back? Why were we flying a drone over Iran? Why do we have to bomb so many countries?

“Why are we — why do we have 900 bases in 130 countries and we’re totally bankrupt. How do you rebuild a military when we have no money? How are we going to take care of the people? I think this wild goal to have another war in the name of defense is the dangerous thing. the danger is really us overreacting. we need a strong national defense. and we need to only go to war with a declaration of war and carelessly flubbing it and starting these wars so often.”

Most Republican candidates share a similar worldview as Michele Bachmann – that simply talking tough and threatening war and sanctions will cripple the Iranian regime. Romney complained about the current president’s response to Iran and others used the threat to Israel as an example of Paul’s “dangerous” position. Paul was not deterred.

“This is another Iraq coming,” Paul warned. “This is war propaganda going on. And to me, the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact and we will soon bomb Iran.”

 

Ron Paul's foreign policy is the most idiotic part of his platform. He cannot and will not explain any of it - he knows it is based on thoroughly discredited revisionist history of the likes of Lew Rockwell. For anyone who disagrees think about this:

HOW did US involvement in the Shah's 1953 coup lead to the 1979 Islamic revolution and everything since? Has Ron Paul ever explained that? Do you know anything about Iranian history and the Second World War? Stalin? Iran crisis of 1946?

Ron Paul is just the modern equivalent of the isolationist/appeasement block prior to Pearl Harbor that spread Nazi/Japanese propaganda, tried to throw Britain to the wolves and attempted to hamper the executive's war powers via flagrant misrepresentation of the Constitution. You'd think people might've learned something about the dangers of appeasement of evil regimes, collaborators at home and the consequences of not believing people who advocate genocide and world domination.

Personally, it concerns me greatly that there are so many people willing to buy magic beans from al-Qaeda/Pakistan, the Twelfth Imamists and Kim Jong Il.

 

Right there is why I feel that Paul has a bat sh*t grasp of foreign policy. Who in the US Government ever said that we were at war with all muslims? No one. And someone better tell Paul that Sweden was the target of a muslim terrorist attack.

http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/En...r-acted-on-Al-Qaedas-orders_311395598198.html

Paul is just incredible. He makes this crap up.

 

Why does everyone think Bachman did good at the Fox debate? All she did was make up some stuff and attack people, and then whine for a little while. I have no respect for someone when all they can do to answer a question is put down another candidate. It needs to be 'why i am better' not 'why they are worse'

 

I agree completely. Bachman v. Paul was akin to a 100 yard dash for imbeciles.

 

I am not a huge fan of Paul, but he is a decent debater. He is always calm. You can tell he pauses to answer the question truthfully, not to lie. And he is pretty consistent.

 

Where did he come up with saying that we've declared war on all muslims? Clearly, he made that up. And his comment about Sweden never having beeen the target of a terrorist attack was absolute nonsense.

The man has a warped and incompetant grasp of modern foreign policy.

 

Outstanding observation. And welcome to the forum.

 

To answer the good Doctor's question it came about as a consequence of the Second World War and Stalinism/Cold War. As I said, Ron Paul is never asked the hard questions about anything.

What should U.S. have done differently Doctor Paul? Not cut off oil to the Japanese and cut off ties with Britain in the 1930's? That's pretty much the sort of position that Ron Paul has given on the Second World War.

His kind are not only a serious threat to the Republic but an egregious insult to the memory of those who paid the ultimate price in the Civil War and every war since to which Ron Paul and the revisionists have voiced their opposition.

 

Thanks. Glad to be here.

 

I think his policy is great. Why the hell is every other country any of our business? Besides, he chooses his words carefully. When he talks about getting out of countries he's very careful to say "troops". We don't need soldiers overseas. Just spies and information networks to keep up with anyone who would intend to do us harm. And most terrorist attacks are aimed at us because we are too involved. Not our country, not our problems. Especially when our country is falling apart from the inside! Its one thing when you have a super rich country that can handle it, but like he says these wars are killing us and drowning us in debt.

 

Paul has no sensible foreign policy. He's a isolationist whose unrealistic ideas about threats to the US are simply crazy. Claiming that we were attacked on 911 because of our foreign policy? Absolute moonbat nonsense. We were attacked because the Islamofascists detest our way of life, our freedoms and beliefs.

But you expalin to me where did Paul come up with the idea that we're at war with all muslims? Who in the US Governemnt ever made that assertion? No one. Paul lies.

 

1) he isnt isolationist. isolationists think we should have no contact, trade, or travel to any other country. they build walls on their borders and shut everyone out. He is the opposite. he wants to end sanctions and let people trade with whoever they want. Trade is also the best way to bring peace, for what kind of stupid country would want to exchange profitable trade for an expensive war?

2) nobody ever said we were at war with muslims, he is just pointing out that that is exactly what it is turning into. These arab wars are only causing more tension and hatred between christians and muslims, because while some in america may not consider us a christian nation, most people in the middle east would likely label us that way. Basically he is saying we are WAY too much in their business. Which I am inclined to agree with.

 

How does Paul plan on fufilling our treaty obligations to other countries?

Paul said exactly that in his debate with Bachman.

 

"Who in the US made this assertion"

I was telling you, nobody did. For a response to your ignorant repetition, please review my #2 again.

Treaties can be changed. Besides, you need to be far more specific...

 

Because Ron Paul and co. say so? What do you know about Shia Islamic fundamentalism? What do you know about Sunni fundamentalism? Do you deny that their respective scriptural schools of jurisprudence all advocate and attempt to carry out the extermination, subjugation and extortion of all non-muslims(apostates/infidels) in furtherance of the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate? How does any of that relate to U.S. foreign policy?

 

Are you denying that Paul said, "But to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims.. and say all Muslims are the same..this is dangerous talk!"

Alright let's be specific. NATO. How does Paul plan on carrying out our NATO treaty obligations?

 

NO (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). But he is absolutely right! This war is creating unnecessary hatred on both sides!

Ok, you'll have to tell me exactly what part of NATO treaty he would have a problem with?

And screw NATO IMO...

 

I take it then that you believe that the US is at war with all Muslims simply because Ron Paul says so. In other words, because Paul says it it just has to be true. You might be interested to note that quite a few muslim and non-muslim Americans would say that Paul's full of crap.

We have overseas bases in numerous NATO member countries? Since Paul claims that he would bring all US troops back to CONUS, how does he plan on honoring our NATO obligations?

 

Okay this muslim thing isn't even an argument anymore its just you trying to bash me because Paul is absolutely right.

Uh, well I assume like any sane rational adult he will speak with NATO about the arrangements, or he may just say bye bye america is more important. which is IS! how interesting.

 

Really? Then why were the "isolationists" in the Senate in the 1930's AGAINST cutting off oil to the Japanese after the invasion of Manchuria?

Everyone? You mean like the Japanese in the Edo period only walls instead of the Sea? Who does that?

Like the Mediterranean trading empires of Rome and Carthage brought peace? You don't seem to understand "human nature."

You mean it's up to US whether the Iranians continue to wage war against their own neighbors and us? You think if Chamberlain/France allowed Hitler to eat the Sudetenland he would've kept his promise not to eat the rest of Czechoslovakia and then Poland? Oh wait, he DID allow that didn't he?

What about the rest of the Muslim world? Why did al-Qaeda send trainers and money to Mindanao starting 1993 to fund Islamists who behead Catholic school girls and such? Were they angry that US accepted the Saudi's request to station forces in the Saudi Kingdom to protect the Saudis from Sadam? Is THAT why Muslims in Mindanao behead Catholic school girls? That's the Ron Paul line isn't it? Then why are they still beheading Philippino Catholics now that US forces have left Saudi Arabia? And why were Sunni fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and elsewhere preaching the overthrow of the United States before First Gulf War and before the modern state of Israel even existed? - see Syed Qutb - Signposts on the Road for example.

See above.

 

To me, none of this is argument. Its all opinion. why dont you look up the definition of "isolationist" and see if you still think those people were isolationists.

 

First of all, you originally inferred that Paul never made the comment about being at war with all muslims. Now you claim that because Paul made the ridiculous assertion that we are at war with all muslims he's right. May I remind you that we have excellent relations with the vast majority of Islamic countries. May I also remind you that muslims in the US aren't subject to wholesale persecution.

In other words you don't know how Paul will deal with our treaty obligations because Paul doesn't know. He's never explained in detail how he plans on implementing his foreign policy.

 

Actually, it's an excellent argument that Paul is an isolationist.

 

So it's just semantics then? Okay, well what's important is that Ron Paul's foreign policy and constitutional jurisprudence(or lack thereof) accord with the block in the Senate in the 1930's led by Senator Gerald Nye that has come to be known to history as the "isolationists" - they live in infamy for their appeasement of the Japanese and Nazis prior to Pearl Harbor.

So whatever you want to call Ron Paul's foreign policy, the fact remains that it is essentially the same as that of the America First Committee. Do you agree with this? Y/N Why do you advocate such a foreign policy?