Ron Paul - our next John McCain only worse

Dude, Reagan's foreign policy WAS horrendous...he's not pro-Iranian nukes, he just believes that, and the sad truth is he's right, is we can't really decide who gets nukes and who doesn't anymore. Besides, Iran would never strike us because they need us for economic reasons and also as a whipping post for their problems (just as they and most ME countries blame Israel for everything in order to distract them), they don't have first strike capability because they could never reach an arsenal of our size anyway.

He hasn't said anything close to Wright's claims. What he has said is that our lack of respect during 2 decades+ of occupation helped initiate anti-US sentiment and that OBL wouldn't have been able to do anything had we not given the Mujahadeen billions of dollars and then ditched Afghanistan the moment after the Soviets turned it into rubble, creating a vacuum.

He's not for allowing countries to strike Israel, he believes they have the right to exist, it's just that he believes they should be able to defend themselves (and they do, plus once again, for logical reasons, Iran would never actually do it because if Israel did not exist, they would have nobody to use as a whipping post and a true, massive revolution would start almost immediately) and we shouldn't be giving billions in aid to them when they have clearly developed more than any other country in the ME.

 

No you did not.

This is what you quoted. He said it would be 'Natural' for them to want the weapon, he doesn't insinuate this would be a good thing at all.

It's like being on a gun range without a gun, it's natural that you should want a gun. Doesn't mean that the gun range or you having a gun is good, it's simply natural that you should want to be equal with your neighbors.

You're taking him out of context there.

 

You are as gullible as the come. I'll quote your beloved to you.

“Just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran,” said Paul. “The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these countries … Why wouldn’t it be natural if they might want a weapon? Internationally, they might be given more respect. Why should we write people off?”

Guess when he made this statement.

 

Where did Ron Paul say anything about it being "good" or that he wants it?

You are lying.

 

No, you are a spinster and a paulistanian cultist.

 

I'm spinning?

You are saying that he said something when you own quote of him he doesn't say.

You are lying.

 

Maybe you should read your OP. It doesn't mention anything about foreign policy. I was really addressing this part of the post:

He's not, by any means, a leftist, and he doesn't just have "some" fiscal conservative beliefs. FYI, wanting to not spend $700 billion a year on wasteful war is the true fiscal conservative position on foreign policy.

 

So far in this thread you've
A: compared RP to John McCain, then dropped that issue.
B: called RP supporters anti-semites
C: called me a moron and assumed I was a RP supporter because I attempted to give you a reasonable debate on the issues.
D: taken a quote out of context and ignored any posts pointing to facts suggesting you were wrong
E: attacked RP for suggesting that the god Reagen's foreign policy was flawed and has led to current issues (Iran, Afganistan.. Read a history book)

And he's the spinster? I'm surprised you haven't thrown up you're spinning in circles so much.

We're so far from the OP now that this thread is getting useless, why didn't you just call this thread "I hate Ron Paul, debate my Ad Hominom attacks" and put it in the Political Opinions Forum?

 

And if you watch the interview he gave 30 minutes after that he expanded on what he said. Cherry picking is insulting.

 

Huh? How did I drop the issue? I said, and still say, the media will use RP just like the used JMac. Fail.

To be fair, I retracted. But stand by them being anti-Israel, and indifferent about them being nuked.

Yes, I still stand by that, just don't think you're reasonable.

Since you're not citing anything it's evidence you're making this up.

Attacked? Hardly. Merely pointed out he's anti-reagan, since most don't know this.

man what is with the pity party?

 

I watched that debate but don't recall exactly what was said. Perhaps someone has the time to find a link to a transcript of the debate.

What cannot be denied is that former President George GW Bush went to the aid of the tyrannical regimes of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the Gulf War because the royal families were former business associates and personal friends with the president. This action lead to the following terrorist attacks against the United States including 9/11 plus two more wars where thousands of Americans have died and somewhere between 120,000 to perhaps more than one million people have also died.

No, the United States was not responsible for the terrorist attacks but our actions did lead to those attacks. These were potential consequences that many of us pointed out in 1991 prior to the US involvement in the Gulf War. What cannot be said is that the potential consequences of US interventionism are unknown in advance. I, along with millions of others, have firmly stood against all US interventionism for decades and have written to members of Congress citing the potential consequences of our actions. Sadly we've been ignored by Congress and our predictions of consequences have been far too accurate.

We predicted retribution by fundamentalist Muslims if the US established bases in Saudi Arabia. We predicted terrorist attacks against the United States either here or abroad. We predicted the chaos and civil war in Iraq. We predicted the failure of the US invasion of Afghanistan saying that we would only succeed in replacing one tyrannical government with another tyrannical government. We predicted that hundreds of thousands would die. All of these predictions have come true.

If Ron Paul misspoke on this it would be understandable. The foreign policies of the United States can and do have consequences. That doesn't imply that the US is responsible for the consequences but instead only means that our actions put the ball in play.

 

Again, citing Paul's domestic policy in an attempt to run from his leftist foreign policy.

 

You mean his Conservative foreign policy?

The Right-wing is traditionally non-interventionist.

If you are pro-intervention, you are a Leftist.

 

Except all evidence is currently to the contrary since the MSM has been ignoring RP in the straw polls.

To be fair, you still made the statement, and they're not indifferent about them being nuked, nobody said that and you're pulling stuff out of your behind again.

Fine, my opinions of you currently are far below the level of 'moron' to be fair. Doesn't mean I've made them in a post, since they really don't belong here because we're discussing (apparently) comparisons between RP and John McCain.

I cited it, Thadd cited it and numerous others have, you didn't read the quote appropriately nor viewed the 30 minute interview he gave after providing the context for that statement, you're cherry picking. And if you want me to prove that RP thinks it's bad for Iran to get the nuke, then you want me to prove a negative since he hasn't made that statement.

He's not Anti-Reagan, as has been pointed out by others in other posts, he had issues with his foreign policy and fiscal beliefs. Even Reagan had a change of heart later in his life, as have made presidents along the way. Most know about RP's beliefs on Reagans issues, and they have their reasons for supporting those beliefs, don't think for a second you're educating people about 'new' issues here.

 

But what you don't understand is, Muslim attacks have been going on for years, against the entire world, regardless of policies. And even if they do say we are the reason, why should we care? We could play the excuse game for our actions as well, just as easily. Why do you fall for this stuff? When people or nations do evil, we should look at the evil doer, not the victim. It's akin to asking the girl that was raped why she wore such short skirt.

Why would you even give them that leverage. Even Hitler had excuses for the evils he committed. And many islamic evils are far worse. What you are essentially doing is denying freewill on the part of some (in this case islamists), and affirming it on the part of others (us). What did we (willingly) do to cause them (unwillingly) to act?

It's a fallacy in logic and a death sentence for any country the falls for it. A Paul presidency would be a disaster.

 

While it is true that most US wars since WW II have been with Democrats at the helm the neo-cons and their New American Century agenda promoted a very interventionist foreign policy. Perhaps the primary difference is that Democrats endorse military actions and Republicans might be more prone to paramilitary actions but both are military actions.

There is actually little difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to US foreign policy. The exceptions have been Ron Paul for the Republicans and Dennis Kucinich for the Democrats who have both been staunchly anti-interventionists.

 

Oh stop. You just lost all credibility. If Paul's not anti-Reagan, then I'm not anti-Obama. Stop with the semantic nonsense.

 

It's more like you get hit by a car and then say "I can't believe that car hit me!". Then someone says "well you shouldn't have been blindly playing in a busy street", and your response is "it doesn't matter what I was doing! They shouldn't have hit me!".

 

How do you figure?

Korea: Started by North Korea (under Dem Truman)
Vietnam: Involvement started by Rep Eisenhower
Cambodia and Loas: Started by Rep Nixon
Grenada: Started by Rep Reagan
Panama: Started by Rep Reagan
Gulf War I: Started by Rep Bush I
Yugoslavia: Started by Dem Clinton
Somalia: Started by Dem Clinton
Kosovo: started by Dem Clinton
Afghanistan: Started by Al Qaeda (under Rep Bush II)
Gulf War II: Started by Rep Bush II
Libya: Started by Dem Obama

That's 7 to 5.

 

Hmmm. So to take your analogy to its logical conclusion, them running planes into our buildings was akin to accidentally striking a j-walking pedestrian?? WOW!!

Thanks for your honesty. I think even Rev. Wright would blush at that one. Somehow I don't think Ron Paul would.

 

Nope. A better way would be to say that if you keep blindly playing in the busy street long enough, you will eventually come across some crazy road-rage freak who will hit you on purpose.

It's better to just stay out of the road.

 

Oh so that's what you meant. Cuz of course if you play near the road you'll be tempting those road ragers that jus can't help themselves and will try to kill you. Riiiiiiiight!!!!!! Nice back peddle. You guys crack me up.

 

How did I backpeddle?

Stop lying and changing your goalposts.

 

you are so transparent. you can't help yourself.

"what, jr. was playing by the roadside and some guy purposely hit him?? well, it's his own fault. how dare he test the road ragers. doesn't he know they can't help it?"

Please, by all means clarify further. I'm dying to hear this.

 

Where did I say that it's the fault of the person that got hit? Where? Quote me.

The person taking the positive action (the driver/terrorist) is the one at fault, however that doesn't change the fact that there are things done by the person hit that increased the risk that they would be hit. They very easily could have mitigated that risk by not being in the road.