Ron Paul on Crimea: None of America’s business

"Article I of the United Nations Charter points out clearly that the purpose of the UN is to ‘develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,’” he said. “Why does the US care which flag will be hoisted on a small piece of land thousands of miles away?”

“Where were these people when an election held in an Iraq occupied by US troops was called a ‘triumph of democracy’?” he asked.

The former congressman’s remarks were published just hours after the White House authorized a new wave of sanctions against Russia and released a statement from US President Barack Obama in which he warned that more could be ordered “if Russia continues to interfere in Ukraine.”

But according to Paul, the US government has more or less ignored recent efforts waged by the people of Scotland, Catalonia and Venice to secede, and instead had opted only to focus on the Crimean conflict which, as a result, he says, “has led NATO closer to conflict with Russia than since the height of the Cold War."

“Perhaps the US officials who supported the unconstitutional overthrow of Ukraine's government should refocus their energies on learning our own Constitution, which does not allow the US government to overthrow governments overseas or send a billion dollars to bail out Ukraine and its international creditors,” the former congressman wrote.

rt.com...



As usual, old Ronnie making the points that saner Americans want to hear. It's too bad he's not doing it from the President's seat. But "Don't blame me... I voted for Ron Paul."

Freedom is only Freedom if and when the US says so- and only if it is instigated through clandestine regime change, and only if it benefits power hungry warmongers. The end. Welcome to the New World Disorder.

So the USA should not honor its treaties when they are inconvenient? Maybe the USA should not make agreements they are not willing to honor...

reply to post by TrueAmerican


He's right you know...
And if the roles were reversed and Crimea were trying to breakaway from the Russian Federation and join the EU... there would be no talk of illegal votes and unconstitutional violations.

It's none of our freaken business... GB on the other hand does have a lot of history there... as in the 'Crimean War'... Charge of the light Brigade ... Now they could have reason to step in, kind of... but definitely not the US

Elton
So the USA should not honor its treaties when they are inconvenient? Maybe the USA should not make agreements they are not willing to honor...

Maybe, but that's before a bunch of western-backed Nazis took over. All bets are off after that.

He appears to be the last american politician speaking sense, I liked him the last few years.
You US people dont let him get suicided or somesuch

HardCorps

It's none of our freaken business... GB on the other hand does have a lot of history there... as in the 'Crimean War'... Charge of the light Brigade ... Now they could have reason to step in, kind of... but definitely not the US

Absolutely not. This is the EU's creation, let them deal with it. They can send the unelected "Baroness" Ashton down there with a rifle and let her deal with her problem.

Not a single speck of British blood should ever be spilled for Europe ever again.

Elton
So the USA should not honor its treaties when they are inconvenient? Maybe the USA should not make agreements they are not willing to honor...

I'm not an international treaty expert by any means, but can you explain how Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity is violated if they voted 93% to be part of Russia? I thought that was self-determination, the same principle our country was founded on.

reply to post by Elton

The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result Ukraine gave up the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and 1996

From your source.

It seems the US already violated the treaty by going in there stirring the pot to begin with!

Zbigniew Brzezinski talked about taking Ukraine from Russia in a book he wrote in 1997 I believe. This is nothing more than a globalist power play. Brought to you by the puppet government of the USA.....

Ron Paul was right. It is none of our business!

How is Iraq and Libya working out after the BILLIONS of dollars spent in the name of "Democracy"?

He's clearly talking too much sense for his words to ever be taken seriously by the majority of Americans, which is a damn shame.

reply to post by Elton

Tony Blair signed them too...so get off your "high horsee"...

reply to post by Elton


Treaties shouldn't exist. They breed a false sense of security, allowing one to eventually think they can ignore the treaty and just do as they please, because the treaty exists in a way, in their minds eye, as a protection against abiding by the actual treaty. I'm pretty sure the main premises of Ron Paul's foreign affairs policy was to ultimately be allies with no one and trade with everyone. I suppose, ironically, much like the philosophy of Sir Francis Bacon's; no man is an island.

reply to post by Sparkymedic


I'm Native American
and if you look at the history of my people, how fairly we were treated by the Government...
then you'll have a real grasp of the true value of a Treaty and what their worth...

Treaty? What the hell? Treaties that aren't approved by the people are null and void. Leaders can't just go around signing treaties without the permission of the people, especially in a republic. Our nation doesn't even need to worry about treaties. All of our treaties include giving 500billion dollars away at a time. That's not cool when we owe how many trillion?

According to www.treasurydirect.gov...

17,511,659,595,323.99 = "Total Public Debt Outstanding" - Their words not mine.

17,511,659,595,323.99 / 10,000,000 = 1,751,165.95 days to pay off.

1,751,165.95 / 365 = 4,797 years to pay..

-- I should mention I doubt this number is accurate as it has been 17 trillion for how long now?

That's insane.. and they label it public debt. lol haha

Doesn't it seem a little absurd that we are worried about other nations?

reply to post by lobograndemalo


Keepin' it ugly somewhere else keeps 'em from realizing how ugly it is right under their damn noses!

Could you guys pwwease vote this guy for the next president???

Yusomad
He appears to be the last american politician speaking sense, I liked him the last few years.
You US people dont let him get suicided or somesuch

He won't be killed, because he is way too intelligent for the American masses. Seriously, watch a speech from Ron Paul with a bunch of random people...watch the eyes glaze over. He is the only politician I love to listen to, and learn from. But, Americans do not even know what he is talking about, and thus do not even care what he has to say. He will never gain enough traction to actually be elected President, and that is sad. So, he isn't a real threat...not one big enough to be killed.

However, we did sign a treaty, as others have stated, so it is tricky. And, we have done the same thing as Russia, in other countries. It's the whole reason why Ron Paul advocates a more isolationist policy, so that we wouldn't have the treaty to begin with.

Ron Paul, at the end of the day, though...is and always will be awesome.

The only reason the US doesn't like this is because they don't agree with the outcome of the vote. If they voted anti-Russia they would have no trouble with it. They're masking the fact that they also have abundant natural resources, natural gas being the foremost reason. The admin doesn't give a hoot about the people over there. If it was some barren sand country in the middle of Africa, they wouldn't give it the time of day.

Catacomb

Yusomad
He appears to be the last american politician speaking sense, I liked him the last few years.
You US people dont let him get suicided or somesuch

He won't be killed, because he is way too intelligent for the American masses. Seriously, watch a speech from Ron Paul with a bunch of random people...watch the eyes glaze over. He is the only politician I love to listen to, and learn from. But, Americans do not even know what he is talking about, and thus do not even care what he has to say. He will never gain enough traction to actually be elected President, and that is sad.

However, we did sign a treaty, as others have stated, so it is tricky. And, we have done the same thing as Russia, in other countries. It's the whole reason why Ron Paul advocates a more isolationist policy, so that we wouldn't have the treaty to begin with.

Ron Paul, at the end of the day, though...is and always will be awesome.

edit on 18-3-2014 by Catacomb because: (no reason given)

I disagree with you a lot, even here Im on lobo's stance about the treaty, but we can agree that hes the man.
Now, its not the "american masses" that Im afraid of you see...

Elton
So the USA should not honor its treaties when they are inconvenient? Maybe the USA should not make agreements they are not willing to honor...

I believe you are correct. We should not make agreements we are not willing to honor. Apparently there are several ( at least three ) treaties with nations other then the U.S. that include provisions for protecting the country in question.

I'd suggest your use of the word " inconvenient " is a gross understatement. There could very well be serious consequences for our meddling in others affairs. Our stance is overtly hypocritical when the U.S has in fact invaded
three sovereign nations. I agree with Dr. Paul. It is none of our business regardless of said treaty. See sig line.

When Putin will invade Moldova, Kazachstan , Poland.... will it be still none of America’s business? .I like and i agreed with most of Ron Paul opinions but he is wrong on this issue.