Ron Paul

[LaszloWalrus]

We are already AT WAR with Iran. They killed 241 marines in Beirut, took hostages from the American embassy, fund the killers in Iraq, and provide aid to Islamist groups around the world.

By avoiding war "at all costs" do you mean surrender?

[Dorian]

We are already AT WAR with Iran. They killed 241 marines in Beirut, took hostages from the American embassy, fund the killers in Iraq, and provide aid to Islamist groups around the world.

By avoiding war "at all costs" do you mean surrender?

The bombing in 1983? I don't know how much you said it actually true or relevant to today but if any of it is valid I still don't think a full scale invasion is necessary.

And no by avoiding war I don't mean surrender if we were at war.

Also I want to retract that statement, I wouldn't want to avoid war "at all costs." When the cost of avoiding war becomes greater than war then war becomes viable.

[The Guru Kid]

Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe the United States has the moral authority to station troops over seas? Does it matter if the government of the foreign nation gives its consent? Does it matter if the troops are there to prevent an atrocity, such as genocide?

Furthermore, given that troops are stationed in a foreign country, under what circumstances do you perceive that a brutal attack on the military personnel is justified? Do you think it would it be justified if Germans, Italians, Japanese or Filipinos started bombing some of United States military bases in their countries?

There has to be clear reason for self defense for stationing troops over seas. A consent from that state should also be acquired. If those are true, the stationing should be temporary until the threat has been defeated. In those circumstances, any attack on the troops should be considered an attack on the US.

How is it in the proper function of the government to prevent genocide in other countries?

[Thales]

Really not the best analogy and Germany was a problem and would have been. Germany and the Axis powers declared war on the U.S. and our allies.

Iran has declared war on us. You have to take seriously their killing of our troops in Iraq via the insurgency, for instance. You can't just let it go.

We were being attacked on our lands. Germany was invading multiple allied countries and was a threat to our freedom. I don't see how this relates to Iran.

They've been targeting and murdering Americans, and that's reason enough, I would think. Remember, the function of government is to protect the rights of the citizenry.

The way I see this thread boiling down to is either you're Pro-War or not.

I see it as boiling down to you're for self-defense or not.

I think that most here would agree with you about Iraq, and that would include Dr. Peikoff, who has been very critical of the whole operation from the start.

Looking at the youtube link you provided I noticed the following statement by Ron Paul:

1:17 into the video:

The tired assertion that America "supports democracy" in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded that hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil..."

Was that oil Iranian oil, or was it U.S. oil? And look at who these people replaced the Shah with, an insanely repressive religious zealot.

Ron Paul says, about 4:50 in, paraphrasing:

"We have now accepted the idea of pre-emptive war, and rejected the Christian notion of Just War Theory."

I'm really hard pressed to agree with the idea this was "pre-emptive war". We attacked after 9/11, when we considered that region to be a threat. We were attacked, so we retaliated. Bush declared war on international terrorism, not just Al Qaeda. He should have named Islamo-fascism as the enemy, but that's another story.

And then he says that Iran, I'm sure that's who he's referencing, has done no harm to us ??????? Check it out, it's at about 5:20 of the video. For crying out loud, that's outrageous.

He does say some excellent things about individualism and diversity toward the end of the video, but he’s really not assessed much of anything right when it comes to foreign policy. His facts don’t even square.

[softwareNerd]

I'm really hard pressed to agree with the idea this was "pre-emptive war". We attacked after 9/11, ...

Nevertheless, (and I know you'll agree) acting "pre-emptively" is perfectly fine. Acting pre-emptively may be an excellent and virtuous thing, or it may be evil. One really needs to know more.

[DarkWaters]

Ron Paul says, about 4:50 in, paraphrasing:

"We have now accepted the idea of pre-emptive war, and rejected the Christian notion of Just War Theory."

I'm really hard pressed to agree with the idea this was "pre-emptive war". We attacked after 9/11, when we considered that region to be a threat. We were attacked, so we retaliated. Bush declared war on international terrorism, not just Al Qaeda.

I believe Ron Paul was referring to Operation Iraqi Freedom not Operation Enduring Freedom. Operation Iraqi Freedom essentially was a pre-emptive war. Needless to say, I strongly disagree with Ron Paul on that pre-emptive war is bad in all contexts. Sometimes it is absolutely necessary for a country's survival.

Really not the best analogy and Germany was a problem and would have been. Germany and the Axis powers declared war on the U.S. and our allies. We were being attacked on our lands. Germany was invading multiple allied countries and was a threat to our freedom. I don't see how this relates to Iran.

I think that the analogy is clear. I think it will be helpful to discuss in another thread to what extent the United States and the rest of Western Civilization is already at war with Islamic Totalitarianism. For those who wish to participate, we can go over both philosophical arguments and long lists of incidents in recent history. I will state and support my case later tonight.

How is it in the proper function of the government to prevent genocide in other countries?

It is not. Given that governments actually do this in reality, it was offered as another possible context.

Digressing a bit, preventing genocide is moral in itself. That being said, I think there can exist some protocol for a Capitalist government to engage in such actions that would ensure that the peacekeeping forces are volunteers for this types of missions and that the war is funded separately from funds that are meant for matters of national defense. If you want to further discuss how such a protocol should be designed or why you think such a mechanism would neveer be moral, we should do so in a separate thread.

I will respond to the rest of your comments later.

Edited July 17, 2007 by DarkWaters

[The Guru Kid]

Nevertheless, (and I know you'll agree) acting "pre-emptively" is perfectly fine. Acting pre-emptively may be an excellent and virtuous thing, or it may be evil. One really needs to know more.

Pre-emptive war by itself is not an evil but it is much harder to make a moral case for it.

[Dorian]

Iran has declared war on the U.S.? Really? When? Where can I read this?

[Thales]

I believe Ron Paul was referring to Operation Iraqi Freedom not Operation Enduring Freedom. Operation Iraqi Freedom essentially was a pre-emptive war.

Right, that's what I assumed. The thing is, you can make a case that wasn't pre-emptive, because after we were attacked we implicated all terrorist states, including Iran. The point was basically, “Okay terrorist states that's the last straw, we're taking no more.” In addition, Hussein continued to approve the attack on us, continued to engage in sneaky behavior, and was financing the murder of Israelis by paying the families of suicide/homicide bombers. He also attempted, years prior, to murder George Bush 41. If it was pre-emptive, it’s a borderline case.

Needless to say, I strongly disagree with Ron Paul on that pre-emptive war is bad in all contexts.

I concur with both you and softwareNerd on this point. Following rights theory, you have the right to defend yourself against the initiation of force, or the threat of the initiation of force.

Iran has declared war on the U.S.? Really? When? Where can I read this?

Just look at their actions. This is why I made a point of following that claim with a point about their actions. By going out of their way to kill U.S. troops, and because of their actions over the last several decades, they have made it clear that they are at war with us. People who are peaceful don’t murder the citizens of another country. That’s not an innocent act. It’s an act of war.

Take a page out of Rome, and be ruthless with your enemies. We need to go Roman on the Iranians. Roman citizens were safe wherever they traveled, because people knew the consequences of messing with them.

[Clawg]

By going out of their way to kill U.S. troops,

There is no hard evidence that supports that they did kill U.S. troops. An US general made some claims about an Iranian involvement and we have some weapons that carry supposedly Iranian serial numbers.

That Iran supports the Sunnis (who are a major part of the insurgency) is also hardly believable because they are the opponents of the Shiites who are predominant in Iran.

Keeping the 'evidence' that was produced for the Iraq war in mind that's hardly enough.

Edited July 18, 2007 by Clawg

[Thales]

There is no hard evidence that supports that they did kill U.S. troops. An US general made some claims about an Iranian involvement and we have some weapons that carry supposedly Iranian serial numbers.

That Iran supports the Sunnis (who are a major part of the insurgency) is also hardly believable because they are the opponents of the Shiites who are predominant in Iran.

Keeping the 'evidence' that was produced for the Iraq war in mind that's hardly enough.

We know the Hussein had WMDs, and pretty much everyone believed he had them.

Here is a Tracinski article on Iran's war against us:

Time to Fight the Real War

But the biggest threat posed by an Iranian nuclear weapon is not in Israel, but in Iraq—where Iran is already fighting a proxy war against America and its allies.

In the Iraqi conflict, Iran has been playing both ends against the middle—that is, against the United States. In Western Iraq, the Sunni insurgency is supported by a flow of terrorists, weapons, and money from Syria—a key Iranian ally. In Southern Iraq, Shiite insurgents have been using sophisticated Iranian-built shaped charges in their bomb attacks on American convoys. But this is the least of the Iranian threat. Violent Shiite militias that seek to impose an Islamist dictatorship are funded, organized, and take their ideological inspiration from Iran. The leader of the most pro-Iranian faction, Muqtada al-Sadr, has publicly pledged to fight on Iran's behalf if it is attacked by America.

There is no need to invoke the doctrine of pre-emption against Iran. Iran is already fighting a war against the United States. We just haven't been fighting back. We have held our fire as if Iran were protected by a shield of nuclear weapons. How much more aggressive will the Iranians become when they are actually protected by such a nuclear shield?

and

Everywhere you look in the Middle East, if you ask who is the biggest threat to America's interests, you will find the same answer—Hamas in the Palestinian territories, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria, the Sunni terrorists and Shiite militias in Iraq—directly or indirectly, Iran is supporting them all.

I've come to trust Tracinski on these matters, because he studies this stuff intensely.

There is also the matter of the killing marines in the 1980s, and the American hostages taken in 1979.

[Mammon]

There is no hard evidence that supports that they did kill U.S. troops. An US general made some claims about an Iranian involvement and we have some weapons that carry supposedly Iranian serial numbers.

That Iran supports the Sunnis (who are a major part of the insurgency) is also hardly believable because they are the opponents of the Shiites who are predominant in Iran.

Keeping the 'evidence' that was produced for the Iraq war in mind that's hardly enough.

Richard Lawless, the departing senior Pentagon official for Asia, on -Friday said that Washington had flagged the issue with -Beijing. US officials have become increasingly alarmed that Chinese armour-piercing ammunition has been used by the Taliban in Afghanistan and by insurgents in Iraq.

A senior US official recently told the Financial Times that Iran appeared to be providing the Chinese-made weapons. The official said Washington had no evidence that Beijing was complicit but stressed that the US would like China to "do a better job of policing these sales". Mr Lawless said the question of origin was less important than who was facilitating the transfer.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a4e0f544-2df3-11dc...00779fd2ac.html

Again, back on the subject on Ron Paul... does anyone see that he has all the conspiracy theorists of the Internet backing him 100%? Does this bother anyone besides me?

[Clawg]

Again, back on the subject on Ron Paul... does anyone see that he has all the conspiracy theorists of the Internet backing him 100%? Does this bother anyone besides me?

Well, they want (obviously) to reduce the size of the government. Maybe they hope for a better information policy, too.

[Fireball]

Again, back on the subject on Ron Paul... does anyone see that he has all the conspiracy theorists of the Internet backing him 100%?

Hillary has paranoid conspiracy psychotic Joseph Wilson behind her 100%. Obama is backed by Keith Ellison who compared Bush to Hitler and the Reichstag fire. Edwards is backed by paranoid conspiracy psychotics who believe Bush caused 9/11.

[Mammon]

Hillary has paranoid conspiracy psychotic Joseph Wilson behind her 100%. Obama is backed by Keith Ellison who compared Bush to Hitler and the Reichstag fire. Edwards is backed by paranoid conspiracy psychotics who believe Bush caused 9/11.

Bush=Hitler=Caused 9/11 is also zealotly behind Paul too, I see them more behind Paul then the Democrats.

[Mammon]

Well, they want (obviously) to reduce the size of the government. Maybe they hope for a better information policy, too.

You know, I don't think it has anything to do with the size of government and more to do with the size of CORPORATIONS!!!!! and the whole MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL-COMPLEX-EVIL-CORPORATISM-GREED-RANT!!!

[Clawg]

You know, I don't think it has anything to do with the size of government and more to do with the size of CORPORATIONS!!!!! and the whole MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL-COMPLEX-EVIL-CORPORATISM-GREED-RANT!!!

Well, maybe you have a different opinion but I'm usually very careful such statements. Corporations working in close ties with the government and whose main income is tax money are not always subject to usual forms of market competition and control so they (and their expenses) need to be watched closely by the majority of the electorate.

That's hardly possible and that's why I think war expenses should be controlled on an individual level by voluntary donations. This would reduce waste, corruption and lobbyism which are caused by bad government management (remember the 2,3 trillion $ missing from the Pentagon?).

[DarkWaters]

It seems to me the main [claims against] Ron Paul [on this forum] are as follows:

1.) He is "anti-war".

2.) He is "anti-abortion".

3.) He is against amnesty for illegals.

4.) He is unprincipled.

I will address your point on each one of these individually. However, I will answer your comments in a different order than you have posted them so as to better illustrate my argument.

I can't say much about his principles other than that they are more well defined than any of his democratic opponents and preferable to ALL of his Republican opponents when his economic positions are taken into account.

I am not sure if any of the members on this forum accused Ron Paul of being unprincipled. I agree with you in that he is probably one of the most principled candidates running for President. However, his political principles are pretty bad. In many cases, they are more about dismantling the government than securing individual rights.

I can't say much about his anti-war stance other than the fact that no war is better than these international police actions that are going on right now. I would argue that in the long run half-assed wars against totalitarian Islam are worse than no wars because they bring more Muslims to the cause without destroying the problem outright.

I think someone can make a reasonable case for your argument above. However, the real issue is what will Ron Paul do to combat Radical Islam? Will he take any action to confront our enemies overseas? I think not. Will he take any action to ideologically combat our enemies? I think not. Will he respond swiftly and justly if (life forbid) the United States suffers another devastating terrorist attack? Or will he issue the Libertarian response of scolding the Americans on how we essentially deserved this attack due to previous "misdeeds" in foreign policy? Ron Paul has made no attempt to distance himself from the ideology discussed in Harry Browne's articles. Until he does, I will never consider voting for him.

The key thing to realize here is that Ron Paul is against national defense on principle. This is much more dangerous than an unprincipled politician who is not taking an aggressive stance against Totalitarian Islam so as to court the anti-war voting blocs.

About him being anti-abortion...well he has stated repeatedly that he would not try to over-turn Roe vs. Wade but would leave this decision up to the states. For me this is not a deal breaker because my economic freedom is more important to me than having ALL states have legal abortion(it is not that hard to travel to another state for such a procedure).

A decent point.

However, first of all, I do not think you are representing Ron Paul's views accurately. In his essay here, Dr. Paul compares a woman's right to an abortion to a property owner's "right" to "own" a chattel slave or a disgruntled property owner's "right" to kill a trespasser. In other words, he believes that no woman has the right to an abortion except maybe when her life is in danger. This is VERY different from saying that the matter should be left to the states.

Furthermore, claiming that the issue with abortion should be left to the states reveals a problem with principles. Instead of stating that a woman has the right to an abortion as the most fundamental, relevant principle or that an embryo has the right to life is the most fundamental principle, the aforementioned position claims that the most fundamental position is that the federal government should not be involved. This mentality is very common amongst Libertarians. The "states' rights" camp perceives that keeping the federal government small is more important than protecting individual rights.

Not having amnesty for illegals is all fine and dandy as long as immigration is reformed sufficiently.

I am still waiting to hear what Ron Paul will do to the millions of illegal immigrants currently residing in the country. Some of Ron Paul's essays on illegal immigration are here and here.

[Fireball]

The key thing to realize here is that Ron Paul is against national defense on principle.

Ron Paul is, on principle, against initiating physical force against a country that did not threaten or attack America. He is, on principle, for retaliating with physical force against those who attack America. Hence he supported Bush in attacking the Taliban and al Qaeda but he did not support Bush in attacking Iraq.

[softwareNerd]

However, the real question is: what does he imagine he would do about Iran?

Edited August 6, 2007 by softwareNerd

[fletch]

Ron Paul is, on principle, against initiating physical force against a country that did not threaten or attack America. He is, on principle, for retaliating with physical force against those who attack America. Hence he supported Bush in attacking the Taliban and al Qaeda but he did not support Bush in attacking Iraq.

You can make the case that going into Iraq was a mistake. But you cannot make the case that a hasty exit from Iraq would not be far worse. Ron Paul wants us out of Iraq immediately without regard to the consequences of that action. In my mind, that makes him just as irresponsible in this matter as any short-sighted liberal. The first priority of a president is safeguarding the lives and possessions of his countrymen. His stance on Iraq shows that he does not understand this. His Rx for Iraq damages America's long term national interest.

[DarkWaters]

Ron Paul is, on principle, against initiating physical force against a country that did not threaten or attack America.

The emphasis is mine. Can you provide some examples of external threats that Ron Paul presently perceives? I doubt Dr. Paul's definition of a threat is reasonable. Does he see any threats today? He has

that "Iran has done nothing to the United States" during a Republican Debate (5:05 in the linked video). I suspect that he does not consider North Korea a threat. Does he even acknowledge the Islamic Totalitarianism movement as a threat?

Furthermore, in his essay Ending Suicide Terrorism, Ron Paul never mentions Islamic Totalitarianism as a threat in itself. Instead he speaks of it entirely as a repercussion of inept United States foreign policy. This is evinced in the following quote:

The best news is that if stopping suicide terrorism is a goal we seek, a solution is available to us. Cease the occupation of foreign lands, and the suicide missions will cease. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S., the French, and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. The reason the attacks stop, according to Pape, is that the Osama bin Ladens of the world no longer can inspire potential suicide terrorists despite their continued fanatical religious beliefs.

First of all, the historical example is very misleading, as the First Intifada began in 1987. This of course involved many of the subversive Syrian and Iranian supported agents who were hostile towards pro-Israeli and pro-United States forces during the Lebanese Civil War. The violence certainly did not end with the withdrawal of allied forces.

Furthermore, claiming that "ceasing the occupation of foreign lands and the suicide missions will cease" is also historically wrong. Will groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad ever stop waging war on Israel? The stated goal in the Hamas charter is the destruction of Israel. What about the Islamic Extremist acts of terrorism in France? In Spain? In Russia? In Indonesia? In India?

Are all of these attacks in the world just going to cease if the United States and its allies withdraw from the Middle East? We have no such indication. Islamic Fundamentalism is a threat to all of civilization and an unrelenting enemy of the United States. Whether we should remain in Iraq is a separate issue that can be debated within reason. However, I cannot support a candidate who does not acknowledge the Islamic Fundamentalist movement as a serious threat.

He is, on principle, for retaliating with physical force against those who attack America. Hence he supported Bush in attacking the Taliban and al Qaeda but he did not support Bush in attacking Iraq.

If the only instances where Ron Paul is willing to confront military threats is after the United States suffers a devastating domestic attack, then he receives an F as a prospective Commander in Chief. How would Ron Paul respond if a U.S. military base or a U.S. embassy suffers a devastating attack overseas?

Edited August 7, 2007 by DarkWaters

[dbc]

On the domestic front, the Wall Street Journel is reporting that Mr. Paul has asked for $400 million in earmarks. Some $8 million is allegedly for the marketing of American shrimp with another $2.8 million to be spent on shrimp fishing research.

From the Wall Street Journal: Wall Street link (subscription required for full article)

From the Club For Growth: Club For Growth link

Dan

[Fireball]

Furthermore, claiming that "ceasing the occupation of foreign lands and the suicide missions will cease" is also historically wrong. Will groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad ever stop waging war on Israel? The stated goal in the Hamas charter is the destruction of Israel. What about the Islamic Extremist acts of terrorism in France? In Spain? In Russia? In Indonesia? In India?

As far as I know, Ron Paul would only use the US military to defend the American homeland.

[The Guru Kid]

He has been known to "forward" the requests of his constituents and then voting against them.

It is similar to the Objectivist notion of accepting government funding but opposing them on principle.