Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why Ron Paul's Foreign Policy is the most beneficial to US

Rate this topic


 thenelli01

Recommended Posts

As for the demanding of proof - that is a consequence of the general mistrust that Americans have in the government. Don't tell me what to do, taxpayers have a right to demand proof as they are the ones sending their money to fund these wars.

No, you don't. You don't have the right to classified information.

don't blame Americans for being justifably skeptical.

Why would I blame "Americans" for anything? Americans aren't writing your posts, you are. I'm blaming you.

As for the notion that a lot of Americans favor Ron Paul's foreign policy, I'll just point out that a lot of Americans also think 9/11 was an inside job, vaccinations cause autism and aspartame is the Devil's sugar. And that the two groups overlap quite remarkably.

So don't tell me that "Americans'" skepticism is justifiable. In general, it's not. It's quite idiotic.

Just stick to citing and justifying your own skepticism, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you don't. You don't have the right to classified information.

You really like to pick and choose what to respond to huh? The next sentence read:

"But the government has a right to deny access to that evidence as what they deem to be information that is classified to protect the country."

Why would I blame "Americans" for anything? Americans aren't writing your posts, you are. I'm blaming you.

That is true and I take responsibility for my posts, but incase you haven't looked at any of the polls - about 80% of americans are skeptical of the government. http://www.cbsnews.c...62-6409635.html many for the reasons that I have cited. So that is why I added "americans."

As for the notion that a lot of Americans favor Ron Paul's foreign policy, I'll just point out that a lot of Americans also think 9/11 was an inside job, vaccinations cause autism and aspartame is the Devil's sugar. And that the two groups overlap quite remarkably.

So don't tell me that "Americans'" skepticism is justifiable. In general, it's not. It's quite idiotic.

Just stick to citing and justifying your own skepticism, please.

I didn't know I brought up the notion that a lot of Americans favor Ron Paul's foreign policy as proof that it was true? I would never use an idiotic argument like that.

I don't agree with every component of Ron Paul's current foreign policy -- though I do think if we had his policy from the gecko and didn't intervene so carelessly, the threats wouldn't be so severe -- but I can appreciate, among other things, his strict constitutionalist view to have Congress declare the war for the reasons I have stated in my last post. Romney said in 2007 he will talk to his "lawyers" to find out whether he needed congressional approval and Obama's admin said he could get permission from an international body so right there he has a better foreign policy because Congress is the only body that is appropriate to give permission for military force. When Congress declares, there is a full and complete debate and is representative of the people - and that is what will get us to have a better foreign policy.

I am curious why you decided to not define your accusations of anti american, pacifist, and anti government? Retracting your claims?

Edited by Matt Giannelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really like to pick and choose what to respond to huh? The next sentence read:

Yes. I pick out the stuff I disagree with, leave the rest. Your next sentence doesn't change the fact that you do not have the right to that proof.

You cited taxation as the source of this supposed right. That makes no sense.

That is true and I take responsibility for my posts, but incase you haven't looked at any of the polls - about 80% of americans are skeptical of the government. http://www.cbsnews.c...62-6409635.html many for the reasons that I have cited.

The reason you cited is the Gulf of Tomkin incident and an unsubstantiated allegation of a misinformation campaign about WMDs in Iraq. I explained why the former is not a valid argument, and someone answered the latter a few posts back.

I don't agree with every component of Ron Paul's current foreign policy -- though I do think if we had his policy from the gecko and didn't intervene so carelessly, the threats wouldn't be so severe -- but I can appreciate, among other things, his strict constitutionalist view to have Congress declare the war for the reasons I have stated in my last post.

Would congressional support affect your or Ron Paul's opinion on any past military intervention, or a future one in Iran?

The reason why I've been ignoring you on this is because I don't think it would. I agree with the legal point you're making, but I don't think it's relevant to the thread. Besides, most members of Congress have been openly supportive of the Lybian intervention, and they are supportive of a possible decision by the White House to bomb Iran. That makes this legal aside of yours that much less relevant.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I pick out the stuff I disagree with, leave the rest. Your next sentence doesn't change the fact that you do not have the right to that proof.

You cited taxation as the source of this supposed right. That makes no sense.

The people have the right to it through Congress. They have a right to it because they are the ones funding the wars. Congress has repeatedly been denied access to certain national security information. So until that changes, the people should demand.

The reason you cited is the Gulf of Tomkin incident and an unsubstantiated allegation of a misinformation campaign about WMDs in Iraq. I explained why the former is not a valid argument, and someone answered the latter a few posts back.

I disagree with your assessment of the Gulf of Tomkin incident - as I have explained in a previous post... my complaint of the WMDs was in response to the degree of certainty that they claimed they existed, in addition to the Al Queida-Iraq connection claim.

You don't think the military industrial complex is a valid reason for Americans to be skeptical?

The reason why I've been ignoring you on this is because I don't think it would. I agree with the legal point you're making, but I don't think it's relevant to the thread.

You don't think that Congress declaring war (which is the central part of Ron Paul's foreign policy) is relevant to a thread titled "Why Ron Paul's Foreign Policy is the most beneficial to US?"

Edited by Matt Giannelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't think the military industrial complex is a valid reason for Americans to be skeptical?

No. I think the military industrial complex, in any sense other than having a military and a military industry that builds weapons the government orders, is a conspiracy theory, and conspiracy theories are invalid methods of forming knowledge of the world.

I have seen no evidence that someone other than elected officials, specifically the President and his closest advisors, are dictating American foreign policy. Until I do so, I'm gonna continue to dismiss conspiracy theorists' claims that the "military industrial complex" has anything to do with foreign policy decisions.

You don't think that Congress declaring war (which is the central part of Ron Paul's foreign policy) is relevant to a thread titled "Why Ron Paul's Foreign Policy is the most beneficial to US?"

No. American constitutional issues are not a matter of foreign policy. The thread is about whether our foreign policy is beneficial or not, compared to Paul's isolationism. Of course this aside is irrelevant to that.

And unless Ron Paul is running for Congress, along with 300 or so like-minded colleagues, it's not even relevant to him. Congress is the legislative body of the United States, and the only body with the power to actually legislate in a way that removes the presidential power to engage in lengthy conflicts without an explicit declaration.

Not only that , but until Congress continues to implicitly support the status quo (by funding what is it, 150 or so different military engagements over the years, that were not explicitely declared?), Presidents will continue to have that power. President Ron Paul would have that power too. He won't use it for the same reason he wouldn't use the power to wage a declared war (he's a pacifist), but he would still have it, as will the Presidents after him.

And Congress will continue to have the power to stop any such engagement, by not appropriating the required funding for it. They have the power to severely limit the President's ability to wage war (to only very small incursions with special forces or targeted assassinations - certainly no lengthy campaigns like we saw in Lybia), even if he continues to act unilaterally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

No. American constitutional issues are not a matter of foreign policy. The thread is about whether our foreign policy is beneficial or not, compared to Paul's isolationism. Of course this aside is irrelevant to that.

And unless Ron Paul is running for Congress, along with 300 or so like-minded colleagues, it's not even relevant to him. Congress is the legislative body of the United States, and the only body with the power to actually legislate in a way that removes the presidential power to engage in lengthy conflicts without an explicit declaration.

Not only that , but until Congress continues to implicitly support the status quo (by funding what is it, 150 or so different military engagements over the years, that were not explicitely declared?), Presidents will continue to have that power. President Ron Paul would have that power too. He won't use it for the same reason he wouldn't use the power to wage a declared war (he's a pacifist), but he would still have it, as will the Presidents after him.

I think you are debating just to debate now. Presidential interpretations of the Constitution are always relevant because it is a good indication of how they will act when they gain power. It's not the fact that Ron Paul will have the power to engage in undeclared wars that is relevant but it is that he will not use it because he is a strict Constitutionalist that is relevant.

Edited by Matt Giannelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the Iran is a "state sponsor of terrorism" - The burden of proof is on you, not me.

I'm not sure what you're asking for, in this regard. This seems to be an unreasonable request. Most every news source reports that various Western governments believe Iran funds and directs (in some measure) multiple "terror" projects throughout the region. Those news organizations usually report on this several times a year, and have for quite some time. I couldn't possibly provide you with paper or videotaped evidence of Iranian officials corresponding with Hezbollah or Hamas, or direct you to anything more convincing than Israeli photos of captured weapons stockpiles that they say were bound from Iran for Palestine. Even if I did prove this, I sense that we'd still be tangled in a discussion about whether Iran's violent expansion is justified or the United States' fault.

So, I'll concede all of the military stuff for now and just ask one more question. Do you think Ayatollah Khomeini's unrescinded fatwa on Salman Rushdie amounts to support of terrorism? According to Wikipedia,

A bounty was offered for Rushdie's death, and he was thus forced to live under police protection for several years.

Muslim communities in several nations in the West held public rallies, burning copies of the book. Several people associated with translating or publishing the book were attacked, seriously injured, and even killed. Many more people died in riots in some countries."

On 3 August 1989, while Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh was priming a book bomb loaded with RDX explosives in a hotel in Paddington, Central London, the bomb exploded prematurely, destroying two floors of the hotel and killing Mazeh. A previously unknown Lebanese group, the Organization of the Mujahidin of Islam, said he died preparing an attack "on the apostate Rushdie". There is a shrine in Tehran's Behesht-e Zahra cemetery for Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh that says he was "Martyred in London, 3 August 1989. The first martyr to die on a mission to kill Salman Rushdie." Mazeh's mother was invited to relocate to Iran, and the Islamic World Movement of Martyrs' Commemoration built his shrine in the cemetery that holds thousands of Iranian soldiers slain in the Iran–Iraq War. During the 2006 Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah declared that "If there had been a Muslim to carry out Imam Khomeini's fatwā against the renegade Salman Rushdie, this rabble who insult our Prophet Mohammed in Denmark, Norway and France would not have dared to do so. I am sure there are millions of Muslims who are ready to give their lives to defend our prophet's honour and we have to be ready to do anything for that." James Phillips of the Heritage Foundation testified before the United States Congress that a "March 1989" [sic] explosion in Britain was a Hezbollah attempt to assassinate Rushdie that failed when a bomb exploded prematurely, killing a Hezbollah activist in London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Matt, I don't think Nicky is confusing those terms. Paul is an isolationist because of the unique (and mistaken) way he expresses his patriotism. By the way, what do you think about Iran's role in threatening Salman Rushdie, inciting riots and supporting groups that attempted to assassinate him? Perhaps they were just defending themselves against foreign literatu... er, aggression?

Edited by FeatherFall
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Matt, I don't think Nicky is confusing those terms. Paul is an isolationist because of the unique (and mistaken) way he expresses his patriotism. By the way, what do you think about Iran's role in threatening Salman Rushdie, inciting riots and supporting groups that attempted to assassinate him? Perhaps they were just defending themselves against foreign literatu... er, aggression?

Sorry I missed this.

I will accept that he is a pacifist in many ways and a bit naive, but to call him an isolationist is to turn its definiton on its head. Isn't an isolationist one that is against free trade and international agreements? Since when did an isolationist become someone that didn't want troops in countries all around the world or to intervene without congressional approval?

As for Salman Rushdie, I would agree that is supporting terrorist groups.

Edited by Matt Giannelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...