It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul pro Israel

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I did not know that Ron Paul is very pro Israel, until I read this www.ronpaul.com...




posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Pro big-oil too

he has lots of similarities with republicans



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Ron Paul resembles Republicans for the same reason that an American shorthair resembles a housecat.

I'm still amazed that people are "hoping" that Ron Paul will bring "change" - I've heard this music before.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Well if he doesn't pledge his support for Israel and it's illegal expansionism, how exactly does he intend to get elected?

Ron Paul might actually bring some decent changes, but they will come at a cost.

Obama had good intentions, look what he's done so far. I wouldn't expect much more from Paul if he makes it to office.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Let the blind lead the blind.
I agree with you, it's funny how people think Ron is different.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mtok7
 


He is a devout Christian, and as such, he is Pro-Israel.

But his view on how to help Israel, is still Laissez-Fairre. He wants us to stay out of Israel's business, and let them take care of themselves. That type of stance, just happens to also solve all of our other Middle East crises and save us a lot of money!!

Ron Paul is an extremely intelligent man.

His Pro-Israel stances should satisfy the majority of Americans, and his Laissez-Fairre style should satisfy those that would like to see us stop supporting Israel. Ron Paul is the best of both worlds!

He said during the debates, when asked if Iran were to attack Israel, would we respond? His answer was, "No, why should we, let Israel take care of it. Iran is not suicidal, they won't attack Israel."



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
People really should read the article before commenting.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Pro big-oil too

he has lots of similarities with republicans


He is pro-free market. In some cases that benefits big oil, but in other cases it does not. There won't be any big bailouts for big oil, and there won't be any amnesty from lawsuits for big oil. Ron Paul just believes in a true free market. I don't believe that classifies him as "pro-big oil."



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Then i'm assuming we are taking back all of the nukes and armaments we gave them?

doubtful



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Laissez-Fairre approach:


Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington.


Common Sense execution of his policies:


Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the Middle East.

As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.

I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies. Most Americans know that makes no sense.


How can anyone argue with this guy's politics?



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
His voting record classifies him as pro-big oil, which I agree with by the way, and his votes against any type of alternative energy legislation also qualifies him as pro big oil.

You can find his record here:

www.ontheissues.org...



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I think it is time people realise this two party system is nothing more than a scam to make you think you are able to change something by voting.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


It's called the Truman Doctrine.

Ron Paul is for isolationism which may lead to far bigger problems down the road.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Misinterpretation or intentional misleading?

From your link:


Ron Paul: “The President gave a speech today about our foreign policy in the Middle East, and once again this administration has proven that it does not understand a proper foreign policy for America. When will our leaders finally do what’s right for America and rethink this irrational approach we’ve followed for far too long? Israel is our close friend. While President Obama’s demand that Israel make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination on her own, without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United Nations. Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington. The President also defended his unconstitutional intervention in Libya, authorized not by the United States Congress but by the United Nations, and announced new plans to pressure Syria and force the leader of that country to step down. Our military is already dangerously extended, and this administration wants to expand our involvement. When will our bombing in Libya end? Is President Obama seriously considering military action against Syria? We are facing $2 trillion dollar deficits, and the American taxpayer cannot afford any of it. Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the Middle East. As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes. I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies. Most Americans know that makes no sense. We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts.”


Sorry for the text tsunami, but I think people need to read and understand this.

A couple of points:

1: Ron Paul promotes a non-intervention policy. When he said "Israel is our friend" he is saying they are an ally and trade friendly nation. He is not saying we should continue to give them foreign aid - he is practicing his own policies of being open and friendly to all nations, treating them all fairly and not trying to have a hand in their foreign policy. He is saying let them work out their problems on their own.

2: This is not Ron Paul supporting Israel. This is Ron Paul explaining very clearly to you that we promote and directly support conflict in the region by arming and supporting ALL SIDES involved. He is saying we should stop funding all sides, keep trade and communication open with all sides, keep our money at home, in your pockets and mine, and stop trying to be a global police force.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


That would just be further interference. I suppose we should take back all of Thailands, and Frances, and Japan's as well?

No. We don't need to back pedal, we just need to take our hands off and let the chips fall where they may. And Ron Paul is not advising an instantaneous retreat. He is advising an orchestrated withdrawal and a foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy and mutual trade benefits. He despises economic sanctions, and he wants to avoid military intervention.

Once again, how can anyone argue that those are bad policies?

ETA:

Laissez-Fairre does NOT equal Isolationism.

Ron Paul wants fair and equitable trade and diplomacy with all nations. It is far, far from Isolationism. People interchange the terms, and they are not interchangeable, they are not even all that similar.

edit on 18-8-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
You're not going to have a very long political career anywhere near Houston if you are NOT pro-oil. In fact, you should all be thanking big-oil for Ron Paul still being involved in politics!

edit on 18-8-2011 by TXRabbit because: spelign



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
And what if the surrounding countries put Israel under seige, would Ron Paul lift a finger to help? According to him no he would let them fall.

Nice ally there



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mtok7
I did not know that Ron Paul is very pro Israel, until I read this www.ronpaul.com...

That's not being pro-Israel
That's being neutral

That's like saying he's pro-liberty and therefore wants everyone injecting illegal drugs into their bloodstream.

It's not pro-anything, it's neutrality

He doesn't want to give any foreign Aid to Israel
He says stopping aid will give them more freedom



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


You are making large-scale assumptions.

Would Ron Paul have gotten involved in WWII? Who knows? He would have weighed the pros and cons and made an intelligent decision.

If Iran attacks Israel, it would be likely suicide for Iran, so it isn't a real-life concern. If the entire Middle East conspired to attack Israel, there would be plenty of warning signs, and every country in the region would have to risk losing the US as an economic and military ally. It just wouldn't happen.

But in your highly unlikely hypothetical situation, Ron Paul would surely use a number of tools to intercede before and during the conflict.

On top of that, I have full confidence that if something ever did require Ron Paul to suggest military intervention, he would get approval of the Congress, and he would go in with full force to end the conflict quickly. No more of this long drawn-out conflict scenario with no declaration of war. Ron Paul would follow the constitution to a T!



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Good.

Israel is a island of rationaility in a region of discrimination, women haters and dictatorships. Being the only fair, elected government in the area, and the USA being as they like to call themselves "champions of democracy", i dont see why they would not support them.

One more reason to love the man!
edit on 18-8-2011 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join