Ron Paul Floor Speech On Libya: "A No-Fly Zone Is An Act Of WAR!"

reply to post by Jazzyguy


Why is Obama speaking about Egypt or any other country? RP has the right to speak out about it.
That is his job, not just domestically. He is trying to persuade people to keep us out of it.

reply to post by mugger

Because Obama is not Ron Paul. RP always give advice that america should focus on domestic issue than international one. But imo the wisconsin issue is the more important issue, hence he should focus more on that, yet that's not what happen, that's why I find it quite odd.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Epic Speech Quite Frankly!!!

Perhaps more of an important speech than epic than again, but it's amazing how people are going crazy over this as of yet.

Now even if you think that Libya won't end up as another Iraq, after the many years of doing what they needed to do in Libya do you think they will leave or have occupation for decades to come afterwards just like they are still in Vietnam and other parts of Europe.

I am barely seeing a sensible response from the media and even people regarding this
what's going on???

Ron is another puppet...

What I've gathered is he is being used as a tool to bring in big issues with a concerned/calm action, but then they actually happen. It's how he progresses them, very deceitful.

"we should think very very carefully, BEFORE we GO expanding the war major wars we are involved in"

He is implying this WAR will exapand.

"...because we went to war, when we shouldnt have gone to war


and to expand this war NOW makes no sense whatsover...."

Can you see the underlying message in there?

I get the drift that something is coming, and it will seem like a legit reason to go to war.

Once again the man is right on point. I gave the last of my paypal moneys to the last moneybomb, I hope he is not like all the rest just blowing hot air. But at this point, I am not optimistic TBH. I was part of the campaign for liberty from the getgo, and what it has become now is kind of a joke(the website at least). Posts are now moderated, and I have had quite a few of my valid posts just disappear instead of show up. It makes me weary though, that a website such as campaign for liberty, feels the need to censor freedom of speech, most time a member strongly disagrees with a blog or article posted there. Until that changes, no more money from me.

From what i'v seen of Ron Paul he's the only one in Washington, who actually has in interest in serving and bettering America

If they took out every gay or cheating republican from the senate the only people thing left on the republican side would be Ron Paul and tumbleweed.

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
From what i'v seen of Ron Paul he's the only one in Washington, who actually has in interest in serving and bettering America

If they took out every gay or cheating republican from the senate the only people thing left on the republican side would be Ron Paul and tumbleweed.

edit on 10-3-2011 by XxRagingxPandaxX because: (no reason given)

Watch the video "Money Masters" on youtube, it will explain the Feds(elite bankers) have power over congress, the president and everyone else. They are behind the NWO. DO you think they would let a man come in a take out their agenda?

This is the NWO show going on and we're all watching, they are all for the same agenda.

Originally posted by studio500
My understanding is that the the US or say the UK alone can't impose a no fly zone. It has to be legal and approved by Nato.

So far China and Russia have refused to back the resolution that the UK has sought to impose.

In my view it's the correct choice.

Actually, it has to be legal under international law and backed by the United Nations Security Council, like the attack on Iraq in Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

Dr Paul is, of course, correct again. Any imposition of a no fly zone would be an act of war, as it would require a massive air assault at the beginning against anti aircraft missile batteries and airbases in order to be effective.

For the Americans to become individually involved, like many Republicans are saying they should do, would be completely wrong given the situation and the political peculiarities of the Middle East.

People like Gingrich and Palin saying that America should go in with guns blazing only goes to show that they know absolutely nothing about the intricacies involved with this particular issue. Going in with guns blazing as an individual nation without international backing and support would be absolutely the worse possible thing that ANY country can do at this time, and would be particularly bad for the United States, given the anti American sentiment felt across the Middle East.

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
This is weird. Why is he commenting on Libya? Shouldn't he focus more on the important domestic issue such as the public union controversy?
Why suddenly Ron Paul more into foreign affair when there's bigger domestic issue at hand?

I think his concern would be that here we are, already in the midst of two protracted wars...So how intelligent would it really be to get into yet ANOTHER conflict while the others are still ongoing??? Just think about the ridiculous amount of money that has been spent keeping the War Machine rolling along....Can we really socially and economically afford to keep doing this?

Originally posted by majesticgent
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

I agree with Ron Paul on this one! It does not make sense for the US to impose a no fly zone in Libya. Why not try to get the two sides in and try to resolve things peacefully? Sanctions won't help anything either. With the way this country is in debt, it would make no sense to go over there and impose a no-fly zone. Putting our pilots and special forces at risk for what? I know that the crackdown that Libya is doing is ruthless, but what do you expect? It is a civil war. Instead of war mongering, how about trying to get both sides to settle things amicably and quell the hostilities.

On another note. arming the rebels is a bad idea as well. It will come back to bite us years down the road and I can promise that!

You said it. Pretty much every time the USA has armed anyone, it's come back to bite them in the proverbial behind a few years later. In Afghanistan they armed the Muhajadeen against the Russians, and ended up with terrorists. In many other countries the same scenario has played out.

If they arm the rebels, and the rebels lose, Gadhafi's revenge will be terrible. The leftover rebels will then blame the Americans for not arming and training them effectively enough (and still might) and will take their fight to the USA instead of keeping it internal.

My guess is that if Gadhafi wins in Libya, there will be some sort of rebel insurgency group created, that will eventually end up being labelled a terrorist organization by the United States. You read it here first.

I like Ron Paul (and his son btw) and think he's right on target with this speech. It's true that we tend to "fund" the wars we get into by first helping those we favor at the time only to have it bite us in the butt later. I am tired of our country being the World's Police force. We need to help on a humanitarian level if needed, but we got enough problems at home to deal with without having to go being savior to the rest of the world. It's things like this that make us a hated country and then we wonder why?!?!

Thanks OP for the video!

reply to post by ModernAcademia


There is no reason, beyond not knowing where Gaddafi is, as to why we can't send in a very precise air strike.

Nothing more, nothing less. Kill Gaddafi and leave the Libyan's to their own devices.

It wouldn't last as long as Iraq if we don't send in troops. So don't send troops.

Also you just can't compare this to the Iraq War. Completely different circumstances.

If anything, not doing anything besides economic sanctions will probably hurt the United States image more in the long run. Particularly since Obama has taken a very strong stance against Gaddafi himself in the first few days, and has advocated for a "moral" obligation to end regimes like this once they enter a circumstance similar to Libya.

reply to post by babybunnies


They are only "terrorists" now because they are against us. When they were doing guerilla warfare against the russians we called them "freedom fighters" or rebels. In essence they are both exactly the same, only difference is who they are fighting. If the same thing was happening in isreal, the palestinians would be denounced as terrorists :/

President Obama does NOT have the right to impose a no-fly zone over Libya; it would an unwarranted, illegal ACT OF WAR!

It is VERY easy to not care in matters like this, I know, I spent much of my life not even voting! If you don't want our country to illegally attack yet another country, spending YOUR tax money for killing, here's a few easy steps to take action, just takes a minute ♥

Look up your Senators emails:
Senate

Look up your Representative:
House of Representatives

Just write a quick little letter, whether the actual rep reads it or just an intern, admin, etc that short message makes a difference! The rep will get a tally of what comes in. They may even write a thank you letter!

If you take a minute to do this, reward yourself, for participating in making America a republican Democracy, with something small - some "me time", a piece of cheesecake, go to a movie.

~ Thanks

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Honestly, I kinda doubt any of our reps out there even bother reading our letters anymore. All the responses I ever got from emails and letters felt like they were just generic template responses, never anything personally wrote. I feel that at least trying is better than nothing, but it does piss me off.

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
We have no business being in Libya.

Help the people? Absolutely.

Provide support in various ways? Definitely.

Overthrow ANOTHER dictator? No.

We're spread too thin as it is and need to stop committing so many of our depleted resources. We don't need more marines on the shores of Tripoli and any more needless bloodshed.

~Namaste

Arming the Libyan rebels is an option, according to The Hague, but it must be tread carefully, because arming the rebels could lead to the weapons falling into the wrong hands or the rebellion succeeding and turning into another corrupt dictatorship.

One scenario envisions the UK, France and Italy airlifting surplus weaponry and munitions like Centurion tanks, artillery pieces and even PAC-1 SAM batteries to the rebels. Another scenario envisions Egypt and Saudi Arabia airlifting similar items.

What do you think? Would such an operation rivaling Nickel Grass of 1973 be feasible?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
President Obama does NOT have the right to impose a no-fly zone over Libya; it would an unwarranted, illegal ACT OF WAR!

I definitely agree with this....not only that, we're in enough conflicts as it is.....however in the news this morning, it was reported that Obama and his administration have changed their stance and are going to support a no-fly zone....*sigh*

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I personally think we need to invade and bomb at least 3 more third world countries before the end of the decade.

It is the only way to be sure.

Originally posted by Techyo

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Epic Speech Quite Frankly!!!

Perhaps more of an important speech than epic than again, but it's amazing how people are going crazy over this as of yet.

Now even if you think that Libya won't end up as another Iraq, after the many years of doing what they needed to do in Libya do you think they will leave or have occupation for decades to come afterwards just like they are still in Vietnam and other parts of Europe.

I am barely seeing a sensible response from the media and even people regarding this
what's going on???

Ron is another puppet...

What I've gathered is he is being used as a tool to bring in big issues with a concerned/calm action, but then they actually happen. It's how he progresses them, very deceitful.

"we should think very very carefully, BEFORE we GO expanding the war major wars we are involved in"

He is implying this WAR will exapand.

"...because we went to war, when we shouldnt have gone to war


and to expand this war NOW makes no sense whatsover...."

Can you see the underlying message in there?

I get the drift that something is coming, and it will seem like a legit reason to go to war.

edit on 10-3-2011 by Techyo because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2011 by Techyo because: (no reason given)

My god you are totally making things up. You ever hear this guy talk other than this vid? He is constantly putting emphasis on almost every other word. He isn't some illuminati puppet trying to convey a secret message about anything. Instead of looking for hidden meaning, how about you look at the REAL meaning? RP does NOT want us involved in these wars, how else is he supposed to say it? I hate to be "one of those people" but it really sounds like you are the puppet here.

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
This is weird. Why is he commenting on Libya? Shouldn't he focus more on the important domestic issue such as the public union controversy?
Why suddenly Ron Paul more into foreign affair when there's bigger domestic issue at hand?

Uh, I don't know if you know this, but if we get involved with Libya it's probably going to turn into another Iraq. In which case it very quickly becomes a domestic issue of sorts, when OUR money is paying for it, and OUR men and women are dying for it. Sounds very important and worthy of RP's attention to me. I think stopping another war is more important than union issues, to be honest.

Ron Paul isn't talking about Libya to get involved with Libya, he is talking about them to STOP us from getting involved. Nothing seems odd about that to me.

It's amazing to me how Rep Paul can say that Gaddafi poses no threat to the United States. Does anyone remember Pan American Airlines Flight 103 at all? He blew up a plane, largely full of your citizens and it fell on Scotland, killing citizens of my country. Gaddaffi has already said that he will resort to terrorism against the West again, and here Rep Paul is saying they pose no threat?

There are also massive differences between the Libyan no-fly-zone idea and that which was imposed over Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. First and foremost, the purpose of the Iraqi zone was containment and the suppression of Saddam Hussein's military capabilities. The purpose of the Libyan zone is to oust Gaddafi from power and aid the rebels already fighting him.

To be honest with you all, if this is an act of war, which is debatable I'd say, so be it.