Ron Paul foresaw a Russian invasion of Georgia in 2002, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 15-8-2008 @ 03:46 PM by pause4thought

YouTube Link

A politician who can see ahead this far deserves to be heard.

If the essence of good leadership is wisdom and integrity, this man appears to fit the bill. His biggest problem is he doesn't bow to vested interests, so will never rise to the top.

On the other hand, how is the U.S. going to stay at the top without such leadership? And how much unnecessary blood has to be spilt before the vested interests themselves see an aggressive foreign policy as a road to nowhere?

I'm not against U.S. influence in the world. I do, however, perceive an increasing reliance on military might where insight and deft diplomacy might have gained the U.S. friends rather than tending towards polarization of the world.

Which leads us back to the conflict in Georgia...

reply posted on 15-8-2008 @ 04:07 PM by Cherokee Eyes

One of the few politicians who speaks to us like were adults, good find thanks for sharing it.

At first Russia seemed justified with its response but seeing how deep they ventured in Georgia i'm just not sure now. (Its hard to get a perspective because the US is pro Georgia (as well as many politicians ) .

I figured to understand the conflict we must wait out its closure and then maybe the facts will come out.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by Cherokee Eyes]

reply posted on 15-8-2008 @ 04:20 PM by mcrose

I feel that Ron Paul is who should be on the ballet for November, I for one am writing him in, I know it will probably do no good, but at least I will have done what my heart tells me to do. I just can't bring myself to vote for either of the other two.

reply posted on 15-8-2008 @ 04:26 PM by Cherokee Eyes

Originally posted by mcrose
I feel that Ron Paul is who should be on the ballet for November, I for one am writing him in, I know it will probably do no good, but at least I will have done what my heart tells me to do. I just can't bring myself to vote for either of the other two.

I'm thinking the same here too, at least I won't feel guilty when leaving the polls ya know.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by Cherokee Eyes]

reply posted on 15-8-2008 @ 05:00 PM by mcrose

Yes Cherokee, I totaly agree, If enough people would do this, it could possibly make some difference, at least it would make a statement that the American people are feed up with the way things are and going. Sometimes we just have to stand up to be counted, and if it doesn't work in our favor, at least we tried.

reply posted on 15-8-2008 @ 05:02 PM by Johnmike

The man predicts invasions, predicts economic recessions, and still was never seen as a viable candidate?

Enjoy your pop star presidents, America - you've chosen them.

reply posted on 15-8-2008 @ 05:24 PM by pause4thought

reply to post by Johnmike

I think that is a touch harsh. Did they really chose GWB? Did he actually gain a majority last time round? And will they even be offered the chance to elect John Paul or someone else of this calibre? Can you see it being permitted in the foreseeable future by those who pull the strings?

Maybe the most the U.S. can hope for is that those who do take office at the helm will heed voices who understand and advocate the advantages of shrewd diplomacy over and above the power of the military option.

In the current crisis the rhetoric coming from the White House sounds more like posturing and threats than world-class diplomacy. Do they even consider how such talk hardens the attitude of 'the other side'?

Is that perhaps what they want? Do they hope it will help them to justify yet more military action as 'Russia just won't listen to reason'? If so, I'd say they're doing quite well - other than in the eyes of those who see through it.

Maybe they just know that by raising the flag and undiplomatically denouncing all who stand in their way the masses will back them up. Well I suppose that's what television is for...

reply posted on 15-8-2008 @ 06:14 PM by GradyPhilpott

reply to post by pause4thought

Ron Paul had his shot and he can't get enough support to gain credibility. He had the same shot every candidate had.

As for our election process, you obviously don't understand how we elect presidents in the US, but don't feel too bad. A lot of Democrats don't understand, either.

[edit on 2008/8/15 by GradyPhilpott]

reply posted on 15-8-2008 @ 06:21 PM by Johnmike

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

Oh, I know how it works.

I just think that the American people are morons, if you judge them from how they voted.

reply posted on 15-8-2008 @ 10:41 PM by princeofpeace

WOW! He was about 6 years too early (seeing the invasion in 2002) but good call on his part. Better late than never!!

reply posted on 15-8-2008 @ 10:56 PM by Agit8dChop

i may be wrong, but i dont actually hear him 'predict' it, he simply uses it as an example of bad policy under the idea of pre-emptive warfare.

he didnt say it was going to happen, he said such exmaples like........

reply posted on 15-8-2008 @ 10:56 PM by DeadFlagBlues

God, he's an incredible man. THE ONLY candidate to be unwaivering in knowledge and thought. Come November, he STILL has my vote. No way I will ever bend my integrity to a "lesser of (same) evils!" Never!

reply posted on 16-8-2008 @ 05:58 AM by pause4thought

Reply to GradyPhilpott

As for our election process, you obviously don't understand how we elect presidents in the US

Oh, but I do:

find a candidate who will pander to the interests of big industry
watch him rake in untold millions from the conglomerates and spend it on advertising
watch his ratings increase in proportion with the spending
make sure he spends more than the other guy
make sure any crucial recount involves nepotism