Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ron Paul lost my vote (maybe)

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I was half listening to NPR this morning when suddently I heard Paul's voice. He said something about not considering an attack on x nation as an attack to the US and that's all I could make up (I work at a very noisy environment).

I'm sorry, but if this means that he would allow Iran or North Korea to attack any of our allies and let it go unpunished, then I won't vote for the guy. I mean, if you saw your friend getting attacked by a bully (not implying Iran is one at the moment), wouldn't you try and help your friend?

I oppose attacking Iran out of the blue, in fact, if Israel was the aggressor I wouldn't mind the US doing nothing, but defending a friend is a whole different issue. So please, if someone has a transcript to those comments please post in case I (or NPR) took the statement out of context, and I really hope this is case, otherwise the guy just lost my vote.

Edit: This was Friday Dec. 30, sometime between 9 and 12 on NPR

Edit2: Before you post, this thread is not about deciding what policies I should or should not support, I think I can do that for myself. What I have not been able to do is locate the transcripts of specific comments Ron Paul made. I know this forum has hundreds of Ron Paul supporters, I'm only hoping one of you can help me without giving me a lecture on politics.
edit on 30-12-2011 by daniel_g because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
you do realize that all wars are based on lies? why waste american lives on a war that has nothing to do with us and is probably not even worth it in the first place. why does it always have to lead to an attack.

why cant the united states become the 3rd party to negotiate peace talks? but i forgot this is america. bombs first diplomacy 2nd



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



So, you'd rather a president who will spend American Tax Payer money, to police the rest of the world; while the people at home suffer of poverty, un-education etc?

Seems kind of counter productive doesn't it?

What Paul is saying probably, is that he would not attack ANY other nation without the US having played a significant role in the conflict from the get go.

America should mind it's own business. Your "Allies" have used you, like a club uses a bouncer. You aren't helping anybody, when you get involved in other people's affairs.

Barring a WW3 scenario, regional conflicts should be handled by the region.

~Keeper


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by daniel_g
 


I think you must have misunderstood what was being said.
He has stated time and time again, he would back our allies in a time of need.
He just doesn't want to go to war on their behalf.

That is fair.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by daniel_g
I was half listening to NPR this morning when suddently I heard Paul's voice. He said something about not considering an attack on x nation as an attack to the US and that's all I could make up (I work at a very noisy environment).



So...you started a whole thread on something you are not even sure you heard.....



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by daniel_g
 


If Iran attacked Israel (which would be very stupid) Iran would get wiped out in less than a week.
You know how many nukes Israel got? 200-400(depending on sources) You know how many Iran has? 0 (ZERO)

Israel would LOVE to be attacked by Iran, that would be their wet dream come true, so they finally got the excuse they need to wipe them out for good, without negative repercusions from the rest of the west.

Not gonna happen dude.

Besides, even Netanyahu says he don´t want the US to help them, they can take care of themselves!



edit on 30-12-2011 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I don't listen to NPR so I'm not sure if this statement was with regard's to Israel or not ... if it was:

According to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyaho

"My friends, you don't need to do nation building in Israel - we're already built. You don't need to export Democracy to Israel, we've already got it. And you don't need to send American troops to Israel - WE DEFEND OURSELVES." (emphasis mine)

What about Israel's right to defend itself?

The founders warned against permanent foreign alliances for a reason ...

ETA: NeoVain beat me to it ... great minds think alike errr

fools never differ?


Here's the vid:

edit on 30-12-2011 by followtheevidence because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DankKing420
 


Do you realize your post contributes absolutely nothing? You must be completely drunk if you think Iran would ever allow the US lead peace talks.

Secondly, read my post clearly next time, I oppose the US leading an attack, I favor the US defending an ally. Now, does anyone actually wants to help me find those transcripts, or did I just open a troll box?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by followtheevidence
 


I have been to Israel a few times. They do not want our help. It is in their constitution to not accept help. This is why American troops could not come in with the Patriot Missiles, they had to train Israeli soldiers to do it. The whole discussion of aiding Israel in war is ridiculous and anti-Biblical (which makes me puzzle at people like Bachmann). Israel will defend itself.

That said, Ron Paul is pretty clear that we won't see any "Kinetic Actions" under his Presidency. Congress (the representatives of the people) declare war and he administrates it. Without a declaration he will not illegally trump the power of Congress. Sounds absolutely rational to me.
edit on 12/30/2011 by ararisq because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by daniel_g
 


If Iran attacked Israel (which would be very stupid) they would get wiped out in less than a week, you know how many nukes Israel got? You kow how many Iran has?


I know that too, but I was using Israel/Iran as example (probably shouldn't have). There are some other to consider: China/Taiwan, North Korea/South Korea. I can't think of any others but regardless, not helping an ally would be unacceptable to me.




So...you started a whole thread on something you are not even sure you heard.....


No, I'm sure I heard it, I need the context.
edit on 30-12-2011 by daniel_g because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-12-2011 by daniel_g because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by daniel_g
 
Which nations are our friends? Why?

Israel? The nation running the most aggressive spy rings against us, only behind Russia and China?

Which nations are our enemies? Why is X attacking Y?

Do you know why World War I began? Entangling alliances. One guy was assassinated. But everyone had military alliances with everyone else, and soon millions died.

The transcript would be handy, but if Israel is the example, as I'm assuming, we've already done a great deal to help them - at our own expense - and they are also a VERY big kid (biggest on their block). They've got nukes, one of the most advanced militaries on the planet, and a track record of beating the snot out of anyone who attacks them, even at 5-1 odds.

Regardless, the founders gave us very good advice about such alliances, for good reason. International politics is murky, and I still have to agree with Adams:

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this:

America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.


We are very far afield here. Yes, if a threat were established against us to sufficient degree, war can be declared and it can be settled - but why should we be dragged into conflicts that don't involve us?

Yes, people should help others in trouble as they're able - but nations should take care of their own people and interests. If the people feel such an affront has been committed, they can press Congress to declare accordingly. But for us to plant ourself in a murky dispute not our own, occurring for complex reasons (how do we determine the guilty), at a cost of blood and wealth is not always the wisest course.

And if we appeal to the apparent injustice of it - sadly that is the way of the world, injustice abounds. Should we as a nation strive to cure it all? Can we feed all the hungry, end all the genocides, save the North Koreans, stop our own muslim allies from abusing and slaughtering their unhappy citizens? Why are all these not our friends, and worth saving?

We have to save ourselves before we can even consider it, and there is not enough to us to cure the world's ills.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
War = Money



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by daniel_g
 


oh please i could be wasted and still know what im talking about. iran wouldnt allow peace talks because all we do is spew propaganda against them and assassinate their people. i wouldnt allow for peace talks either with our current government.

our government doesnt follow behind other countries thats blatantly obvious if we enter a conflict we automatically become top dog dont be ignorant. and why should we protect an ally in the first place when the conflict itself doesnt concern us.

its sad when people automatically write off diplomacy.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Iran and North Korea are not attacking others, how did you get to that point?

Countries doesn't have "Friends", they only have common commercial interests.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by daniel_g
 


So you supported Ron Paul? Great, but I doubt it. Real Ron Paul supporters know very well at least two main huge sticking points as to why they support him. #1 Ending the Federal Reserve and #2 his foreign policy. It sounds like you have no idea what his foreign policy is and this thread is evidence of that.

There's a whole lot of "He had my vote but not now" garbage going on lately on ATS and I don't buy it.
edit on 30-12-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by daniel_g
 


So you supported Ron Paul? Great, but I doubt it. Real Ron Paul supporters know very well at least two main policies of his as huge sticking points as to why they support him. #1 Ending the Federal Reserve and #2 his foreign policy. It sounds like you have no idea what his foreign policy is and this thread is evidence of that.

There's a whole lot of "He had my vote but not now" garbage going on lately on ATS and I don't buy it.
edit on 30-12-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)


I'm sorry, but I don't spend my days on a conspiracy forum trying to find a good candidate. Instead, I spend most days working and my only source of information is the good old radio. Last month Ron Paul had near zero air time. This month he started getting some attention. I liked him from the debates, I didn't question his foreign policy because he never mention much about it. Now he gets tons of media attention and today I happened to hear something that made me feel green.

I don't support Obama as I hate anything that resembles socialism. I don't support Romney, he looks like a car salesman. I liked Cain but he is gone. All other candidates are a joke. Thanks for pointing out that my thread is just another piece of garbage, it made me realize that all the lame ass comments come from supporters of the guy I want(ed) to support.
edit on 30-12-2011 by daniel_g because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by daniel_g
 


Sure, don't mention it. When you grow up you can learn to make decisions on your own, not by what the media says and not by what I or what others say. Do the research yourself, no candidates want wishy-washy voters anyway.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by daniel_g
 


So, you ruled out Romney on looks alone...real in depth decision on your part.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
honestly, why drag ron pauls name through the mud, aint he getting enough of that from the MSM

you could have named this thread a bit better
edit on 30-12-2011 by jazzguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by daniel_g
 


if you really cared about who you voted for you would find time to find news sources other than the msm. its doesnt have to be a conspiracy forum either. and for you to even have an account on ATS shows that you have more time that your letting on

do us a favor because you obviously ignored the people that posted videos to help answer your ron paul foreign policy question and get off ATS to do research of your own.

im pretty sure alot of people didnt find out about ron paul on ATS atleast i for one didnt





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join