If Ron Paul was commander in chief instead of Obama right now...

...would there be any tension between the U.S. of A. and Russia at this point in 2011?

Was a vote not for RP back then a vote for world war three?

Has the voters in the last election day for POTUS been pushed the red botton?

I think it might be too late to have RP as POTUS to avoid world war three now.

What do you all think?

If RP were in office and he stuck to his word then no there would be no tension between Russia and the US. But seeing how he also said he would cut all foreign aid you can bet there would be tension between the US and Israel. They would make sure he didn't live out his first term.

There might be less tension between the US and Russia, but there are hundreds of other aspiring dictators and superpowers just salivating at Paul's brand of 'American isolationism'.

Ron Paul is definitely the most qualified to tackle domestic issues, but he seems like a complete dunce when it comes to international politics. He doesn't seem to grasp the fact that unprecedented evil exists all over the world which has nothing to do with United States 'meddling', and that this evil, in its various forms, are in fact bent on destroying American, European, and Western civilization as a whole.

In my opinion, American isolation is not a solution to averting World War 3, but a QUEUE for starting it - as the the 'world police' are no longer on the beat, as it were.

Mark my words, with someone like Ron Paul in office, America's enemies would immediately try and provoke her into another war to call us hypocrites - exactly the way Islamists did but attacking the USS Cole and later the twin towers. (Not all conspiracies can be blamed on the US government. This one, in my opinion, literally comes from radical Islam.)

I'll still vote for Paul though if I think he has a chance of winning because domestic issues are just that important. Plus, the American military wouldn't listen to him anyways in time of war so America wouldn't be crippled (much).

reply to post by TheBlackestSheep
The evil around the world has nothing to do with the United States and it's not our business unless it comes to the United States, and our military would be better prepared to defend it's homeland if we were not spread out in so many countries, if and when our homeland is ever attacked. The axis of evil mentality is so 2001.

Welcome to ATS...

ETA: I think tensions between us and other nations would drop dramatically. Many non Americans really like what Ron Paul stands for and support him, and it'd be a great chance for the US to again lead by example on the world stage, and it's not too late.

reply to post by TheBlackestSheep


You are right. The Russians would just sit back and wait for. Iran, China, Pakistan etc.. to line up their ducks and then nuke us while we are in the streets killing each other. Ron Paul would say "oops" and the libertarian fantasy would be just another brain fart.

"The evil around the world has nothing to do with the United States and it's not our business unless it comes to the United States, and our military would be better prepared to defend it's homeland if we were not spread out in so many countries, if and when our homeland is ever attacked. The axis of evil mentality is so 2001. "


You're basically saying that America should not have allies, because having allies automatically means providing military support.

This quote is quite popular on these forums I've noticed, so here it is again in its correct context.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

We didn't just launch the war on terror because of the USS Cole or 9/11, but because our European, Arab, and Israeli allies have been dealing with sporadic Islamic terrorism for decades. Thanks to the media, we were kept totally in the dark until 9/11. We only THINK radical Islam was 'invented' because it was kept under wraps for centuries, and any historical accounts by either European OR Islamic sources will verify this.

Who knows though - maybe we were also trying to steal Arab oil - though I haven't seen much evidence to support this claim, nor would it negate the prime objective.

In my opinion, terrorism really was becoming a global epidemic around 2001, so an insidious government conspiracy was hatched to deal with it. For the record though, I do believe the government DID and STILL IS lying about the nature of this war - just not about the radical Islam part.

Radical Islam and a 9/11 inside job are not mutually exclusive, they just seem to be.

Also, I didn't say 'axis of evil', I just acknowledged the threat of evil around the world. What then does 'thats so 2001' even mean?' I hope you're just trying to make fun of me and don't just reject ideas on the basis of being 10 years old....THAT would be totally irrational.

Originally posted by TheBlackestSheep
There might be less tension between the US and Russia, but there are hundreds of other aspiring dictators and superpowers just salivating at Paul's brand of 'American isolationism'.

Ron Paul is definitely the most qualified to tackle domestic issues, but he seems like a complete dunce when it comes to international politics. He doesn't seem to grasp the fact that unprecedented evil exists all over the world which has nothing to do with United States 'meddling', and that this evil, in its various forms, are in fact bent on destroying American, European, and Western civilization as a whole.

In my opinion, American isolation is not a solution to averting World War 3, but a QUEUE for starting it - as the the 'world police' are no longer on the beat, as it were.

Mark my words, with someone like Ron Paul in office, America's enemies would immediately try and provoke her into another war to call us hypocrites - exactly the way Islamists did but attacking the USS Cole and later the twin towers. (Not all conspiracies can be blamed on the US government. This one, in my opinion, literally comes from radical Islam.)

I'll still vote for Paul though if I think he has a chance of winning because domestic issues are just that important. Plus, the American military wouldn't listen to him anyways in time of war so America wouldn't be crippled (much).

edit on 13-12-2011 by TheBlackestSheep because: (no reason given)

Why do you America has so many enemies anyway? It's because of our retarded foreign policy. It is not our job to be the world police The military not listen to him? Maybe you should look at who gets the most donations from military members. And if the commanders refuse to follow orders we have a nice little prison in Fort Leavenworth just waiting for them.

One can't say with certainty, Obama promised tons of Change, and failed to deliver, until things happen it's just talk, that of which anyone can do, that of which many of us do here,

Likewise one can't truly blame Obama, if anyone continues to believe the president is more then a mere puppet, is quite naive, they are the facade, one that enables the political paradigm, one that sides ideologies and controls by separation,

one can ask that same question about any election, would things differ had another taken place?

"Why do you America has so many enemies anyway? It's because of our retarded foreign policy."

You need to look at it on a case by case basis, rather than just assuming that America's enemies all hate America for the same exact reasons, or that everyone one of these reasons is even valid to begin with.

"It is not our job to be the world police"

True, but you could have easily said something like "the world doesn't need policing". This indicates that you're more against America policing the world than it actually being policed to begin with. Why?

"The military not listen to him? Maybe you should look at who gets the most donations from military members. And if the commanders refuse to follow orders we have a nice little prison in Fort Leavenworth just waiting for them."

Fair enough. I should have been more clear.

What I meant specifically is that IF Ron Paul started making idiotic military decisions, he would be 'pressured' to let the military handle it - not just by the elite, but by at least half the American population as well. (You do realize that many who dislike Ron Paul perceive him to be a coward right?)

A good example would be Iran threatening to nuke Great Britain. Do we just sit back and say 'Not my problem!" or get involved?

You can laugh at this scenario if you want, but you're just setting yourself up to look stupid if it actually happens. The Iranian government, JUST LIKE ANY GOVERNMENT, is full of liars and obsessed with war.

Please don't forget that when finger pointing.

"Likewise one can't truly blame Obama, if anyone continues to believe the president is more then a mere puppet, is quite naive, they are the facade, one that enables the political paradigm, one that sides ideologies and controls by separation, "

This also ties into why the military would not listen to Ron Paul during wartime - because the president almost never calls the shots in war, and RARELY calls the shots on domestic issues either.

In Paul's case, I think he would be up to his eyeballs in domestic issues that he would have no choice but to offload most foreign affairs onto others in government.

People need to remember that for every presidential duty, there are 10+ people better qualified to handle it than the president. The president's real job is to smile at the camera and take credit/flack/bullets for decisions made by the shadow government - a human surge protector, if you will.

Originally posted by TheBlackestSheep
There might be less tension between the US and Russia, but there are hundreds of other aspiring dictators and superpowers just salivating at Paul's brand of 'American isolationism'.

Ron Paul is definitely the most qualified to tackle domestic issues, but he seems like a complete dunce when it comes to international politics. He doesn't seem to grasp the fact that unprecedented evil exists all over the world which has nothing to do with United States 'meddling', and that this evil, in its various forms, are in fact bent on destroying American, European, and Western civilization as a whole.

In my opinion, American isolation is not a solution to averting World War 3, but a QUEUE for starting it - as the the 'world police' are no longer on the beat, as it were.

Mark my words, with someone like Ron Paul in office, America's enemies would immediately try and provoke her into another war to call us hypocrites - exactly the way Islamists did but attacking the USS Cole and later the twin towers. (Not all conspiracies can be blamed on the US government. This one, in my opinion, literally comes from radical Islam.)

I'll still vote for Paul though if I think he has a chance of winning because domestic issues are just that important. Plus, the American military wouldn't listen to him anyways in time of war so America wouldn't be crippled (much).

edit on 13-12-2011 by TheBlackestSheep because: (no reason given)

What alternate reality are you living in?

How can you suggest the Military would not listen to Ron Paul? He gets more donations from active Military than anyone else, I think that is a pretty good indicator that they would listen.

Furthermore, non intervention and isolation are two completely different things. Ron Paul is not for isolationism. He is for Non Interventionism. He wants to trade with people, he wants dialogue, at the same time he does not think we should stick our nose in other countries domestic issues..and I agree.

Why should the US be the world's policeman? Better yet, let us look at such an idea from the other side. What if China was the world policeman? Would you like China having any say about what happens in your backyard? Would you want to hear China's opinion on how to secure our boarder with Mexico? What if the US finally did manage to secure the boarder and China disagreed with US policy. Would you care? If not, how would you feel if China used sanctions, intervention, covert operations or military action to get the US to change it's policy in favor of one China finds more acceptable?

For most, the idea is absurd. Americans would never stand for such a thing, but the problem here is that this is exactly what the US does and we expect other people lie you and I, in some other country half way around the world, to accept it and deal with it. Then we wonder why there are people who want to come here and kill us? There is nothing wrong with being a Neutral country. When is the last time you heard of someone wanting to kill the Swiss? When was the last time a terrorist organization put out a release about "The Great Satan" Sweden?

reply to post by TheBlackestSheep

but he seems like a complete dunce when it comes to international politics

Call him a complete dunce if you want to; however we don't need international politics. Just trading goods and whatever necessary for the economy, but nothing that has to do with wars, and building embassies world-wide...

Then probably the whole world would be at war because every country who wanted to fight another country (without having to fear US intervention) would be fighting by now.

Originally posted by WarJohn
...would there be any tension between the U.S. of A. and Russia at this point in 2011?

Was a vote not for RP back then a vote for world war three?

Has the voters in the last election day for POTUS been pushed the red botton?

I think it might be too late to have RP as POTUS to avoid world war three now.

What do you all think?

reply to post by WarJohn

The tension between the US and any country has everything to do with Capitalism and Zionism. The US is proud not to spread democracy but Capitalism and make good little consumers out of developing nations. The Russians and the Chinese and Arabs for that matter wish to control their own Money Sucking Vacuums and leave the Zionist out of their money affairs .....know what I mean, Vern!!!

IMHO

reply to post by TheBlackestSheep


" Ron Paul is definitely the most qualified to tackle domestic issues, but he seems like a complete dunce when it comes to international politics. He doesn't seem to grasp the fact that unprecedented evil exists all over the world which has nothing to do with United States 'meddling', and that this evil, in its various forms, are in fact bent on destroying American, European, and Western civilization as a whole. "

Such a Generic comment needs to be Questioned IMO . What and Where is this Alledged " EVIL " that you Speak Of ? You sound Brainwashed into Thinking the Whole World wants to Destroy the United States because some Politicians Tell you So . Before WWII , America was Mostly a Isolationist Nation that considered what happened around the World that had No Direct Effect on it to be of No Consequence . As long as the United States has a Strong Defense At Home , we should Not Fear what goes on in other areas of the Globe . Ron Paul is Smart enought to Realize this , and has the Courage to tell it with Confiction . With an IQ of 170 , I doubt Very Much he is as you say , a " Complete Dunce " ..........

reply to post by TheBlackestSheep

You need to look at it on a case by case basis, rather than just assuming that America's enemies all hate America for the same exact reasons, or that everyone one of these reasons is even valid to begin with.

Listen to our enemies they hate us because we constantly stick our noses in where it doesn't belong.

True, but you could have easily said something like "the world doesn't need policing". This indicates that you're more against America policing the world than it actually being policed to begin with. Why?

All our policing the world does is raise radical hatred against America drive us into bankruptcy and more dead Americans. And what do we get out of it? Nothing

What I meant specifically is that IF Ron Paul started making idiotic military decisions, he would be 'pressured' to let the military handle it - not just by the elite, but by at least half the American population as well. (You do realize that many who dislike Ron Paul perceive him to be a coward right?)

Most of those who perceive him to be a coward never had the balls to join the military unlike RP who is a vet. If a person isn't willing to fight in the war shouldn't be calling for one.

A good example would be Iran threatening to nuke Great Britain. Do we just sit back and say 'Not my problem!" or get involved?

No we shouldn't get involved GB doesn't need the US to protect them. Iran has no ICBMs so how would it get a nuke there throw it?

You can laugh at this scenario if you want, but you're just setting yourself up to look stupid if it actually happens. The Iranian government, JUST LIKE ANY GOVERNMENT, is full of liars and obsessed with war.

Yes Iran is obsessed with war that's why they haven't started one in the last couple of hundred years.

What alternate reality are you living in? How can you suggest the Military would not listen to Ron Paul? He gets more donations from active Military than anyone else, I think that is a pretty good indicator that they would listen.

Ron Paul gets those donations because our troops are sick of getting blown up by the people they're supposed to protect, not because they’re a bunch of libertarians. Ron Paul is just their ticket home.

Furthermore, non intervention and isolation are two completely different things. Ron Paul is not for isolationism. He is for Non Interventionism. He wants to trade with people, he wants dialogue, at the same time he does not think we should stick our nose in other countries domestic issues..and I agree.

Everyone wants that, but the problem is that some conflicts cannot and should not be avoided. Example:
1. America declares itself noninterventionist
2. America continues trading with its former allies
3. Rogue nation says “hey, f*ck (random economic ally of America), lets attack them.”

How should this situation be handled?

Why should the US be the world's policeman? Better yet, let us look at such an idea from the other side. What if China was the world policeman? Would you like China having any say about what happens in your backyard?

Because half the world is a lawless hellhole dominated by terrorists, cartels, and warlords? (I believe that also answers your question about what I consider evil, Zanti Misfit)

Also..China does police its region of the world. Ever hear of Tibet?

You sound Brainwashed into Thinking the Whole World wants to Destroy the United States because some Politicians Tell you So

Which politician says that? (Seriously)

The only things 'brainwashing' me are Al Jazeera (Arab), PressTV (Iranian), and MilCuenta (Mexican Cartel).
Let me guess, they're all controlled by the CIA?

Listen to our enemies they hate us because we constantly stick our noses in where it doesn't belong.

The Mafia actually uses this to justify murder..... Maybe if the police just left the Mafia alone, they'd stop committing crime??

No we shouldn't get involved GB doesn't need the US to protect them. Iran has no ICBMs so how would it get a nuke there throw it?

So ICBMs are the only way to get a nuke into another country, huh? You can’t seriously be that stupid…

Also, am I to understand that if a country DID need the US to protect them, it would matter to you?

Yes Iran is obsessed with war that's why they haven't started one in the last couple of hundred years

So did I just imagine all those veiled threats Ahmadinejad has been making?

If a republican became a president again, then WW3 would be round the corner. George Bush anyone? The thickest president who nearly started a world war atleast twice. Ahwell. We're humans, there will always be bickering in this pety world

To call Ron Paul a coward is a cheap shot, especially seeing as he is a vet. I suspect if Ron Paul was Commander he would be closely adhering to what his congress was voting and telling him. If the world needed policing in some way and the congress voted for a declaration of war then Paul would conceit. Remember he is a physician and does follow his oath in that respect too. He will avoid bloodshed at all costs or until he has exhausted all other avenues. A trait that all presidents should follow. We have all been brainwashed into believing violence is the only solution. Have any of his critics really delved into his diplomacy policies? He could have many common sense solutions just waiting to be tapped.

Originally posted by buster2010
If RP were in office and he stuck to his word then no there would be no tension between Russia and the US. But seeing how he also said he would cut all foreign aid you can bet there would be tension between the US and Israel. They would make sure he didn't live out his first term.

Israel is smaller than West Vrginia, or about the size of Costa Rica, we need to cut foreign aid until we get back on our feet. It makes no sense to give away money when we are broke. I can handle a little "tension".