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.

 

So Ron Paul's foreign policy is crazy?

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I'll apologize at the outset for opening another Paul thread as I know some are weary of it, but over the last few weeks Ron Paul has been getting crucified by the media and the other republican candidates for his foreign policy views.

As such, I feel it is appropriate to share the opinions of two gentlemen who have served their country in the military and intelligence communities so we can set the record straight on accusations of Paul being a danger to america through his views on this subject. I know the late CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson also supported Paul's views, but I'm not aware of any sort of endorsement prior to his passing:

Robert David Steele

Robert David Steele Vivas (b. July 16, 1952 New York City), is known for his promotion of open source intelligence (OSINT). He is a former United States Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer for twenty years and was the second-ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988–1992. Steele is a former clandestine services case officer with the Central Intelligence Agency. He is the founder and CEO of OSS.Net as well as the Golden Candle Society. Steele also was a member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University in the mid-1990s. He's the son of an "oil man" as he said in a previous interview.


In this YouTube endorsement, Steele excoriates Rick Santorum for his slams on Paul and says Paul is the only republican truly serious about national security and homeland defense:


In addition to Mr. Steele, former CIA Bin Laden unit head Michael Scheuer has also provided a message to the people of Iowa presenting them with a choice regarding their upcoming caucuses.

Here's some background on Mr. Scheuer:

Michael F. Scheuer (born 1952) is a former CIA intelligence officer, American blogger, historian, foreign policy critic, and political analyst. He is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies. In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station"), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.

Scheuer became a public figure after being outed as the anonymous author of the 2004 book Imperial Hubris, in which he criticized many of the United States' assumptions about Islamist insurgencies and particularly Osama bin Laden. He depicts bin Laden as a rational actor who is fighting to weaken the United States by weakening its economy, rather than merely combating and killing Americans.


In his article Iowa’s Choice: Ron Paul or U.S. Bankruptcy, More Wars, and Many More Dead Soldiers and Marines, Scheuer provides his insights on why Paul is the only rational choice for president from an economic, national security, and energy independence standpoints. I'll only provide the closing here, but the article is very much worth reading in full:

In the words of Dr. Paul’s Republican opponents, the Obamaites, and most of the media, on the other hand, Iowans ought to easily be able to hear the elitist, racist, and war-causing Wilsonian doctrine of intervening abroad to impose democracy and secular social beliefs on foreigners at the point of bayonets. Indeed, the national-security policy advocated by Dr. Paul’s opponents and critics boils down to the clear and absurd argument that: America needs more and more wars — and the dead/maimed military personnel attendant thereto — that are motivated by Washington’s intervention abroad if Americans are to be safe and secure at home.

For Iowans and Americans as a whole, then, the best choice for their children, grandchildren, and country clearly lies in the Founder’s foreign-policy wisdom and Dr. Paul’s sturdy advocacy and promised application thereof.


Now, I would like to ask if anyone is aware of any terrorism expert or intelligence analyst endorsements of the other candidates they might be able to provide here? I would like to, for once and for all, either lay to rest the republican complaint with Paul's foreign policy, or expose serious intelligence disagreements on the course of our nation.

I would personally like to assume that common knowledge of these facts amongst those who should know explains the reason Dr. Paul receives more support from active-duty military members, government workers, and government contractors than the rest of the republican line-up (combined, in some cases):


God bless, good night, and you all have a safe new year weekend!
edit on 12/30/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
The problem for the U.S. is that it is borrowing and spending too much, and this applies not only to the government but also to the military, households, and corporations. Unfortunately, it also has an economy that is dependent upon heavy borrowing and spending, which means it has no choice but to continue along the path towards economic collapse. In addition, none of these groups will agree to cutting down heavily on borrowing and spending and will instead blame each other.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by monkeyluv
 
True. I'm not in the habit of quoting Lincoln as I find some of his views and actions distasteful, but he was otherwise wise and DID speak a lot of truth as well:

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Star and flag for you! The only thing I can add is that many other foreign policy experts agree with Paul. There's Harvey Sapolsky, emeritus professor of public policy and organization at MIT AND Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute.
abcnews.go.com...



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Habit4ming
 
And since we crossed with the same topic on the other thread, let's go ahead and also emphasize that oh-so-threatened-with-annihilation Israeli intelligence also agrees with Paul, at least as far as Iran, here on this thread since is related -

Israeli spy chief downplays Iranian nuke threat:

JERUSALEM — The head of Israel’s intelligence agency says that a nuclear-armed Iran does not necessarily pose an existential threat to the Jewish state, according to Israeli ambassadors.

Mossad chief Tamir Pardo addressed a conclave of Israeli ambassadors in Jerusalem on Thursday, saying that Israel’s existence is not inevitably endangered by Iran acquiring an atomic weapon, even as Israel has tried to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.

“What is the significance of the term ‘existential?’” Mr. Pardo was quoted as saying by several ambassadors. “If you said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an ‘existential’ threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop. That’s not the situation. The term is used too freely.”


Mr. Pardo is not alone in his assessment:

However, Mr. Pardo’s comments echo those of his predecessor at Mossad, Meir Dagan, and of other former and current Israeli security officials.

Mr. Dagan had vigorously opposed an attack and expressed his position publicly after retiring earlier this year. Gabi Ashkenazi, former armed forces chief of staff, also reportedly opposed an attack.

Opponents to an attack plan say that Iran, as a rational state, would not launch a nuclear assault that would ensure a retaliatory Israeli strike on its cities, including holy sites.


And for the big common-sense kicker I always try to get people to understand:

Zeevi Farkash, Israel’s former military intelligence chief, has said that Iran’s main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention, in much the same way that nuclear-armed North Korea feels secure against a U.S. attack.


edit on 12/31/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I don't think his foreign policy is crazy at all...but then again I'm a Liberal leaning person...and that is the problem Ron Paul has....he is running as a Republican.

Ron Pual has a duplicity issue. Democrats and Independents like his foreign policy, hate his domestic policy....Republicans like his domestic policy, hate his foreign policy.

By admission from Ron Paul and his own supporters...the only chance he has to win the Republican nomination is if enough Democrats and Independents switch to Repbulicans to vote in the primaries.

This leaves him with a small group of supporters from three camps, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents...these may be able to combine to take some States in the Republican primaries when the vote is spread over 6-8 candidates. But when it comes to the general election...his duplicity issue is so deep that the Republican base will not support him in the general election...Gary Johnson is already stated he will run third party, that gives them an option, and Trump has stated that he will run third party if the "wrong" candidate wins the Republican nomination (which is Ron Paul).

His three way coalition of supporters will not be able to carry him through the general election in my opinion. And it is caused by him have politically contradictory domestic and foreign policies.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 
Thanks OutKast, you've got good observations on this and I do appreciate them. The die has pretty much been cast, and we'll see how it all plays out. I just hope some of my thoughts prove correct.

Happy new year.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


You are soooo wrong ..Ron Paul will wipe Obama of the political map after only two tv debates ! Problem is republican nomination



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


You are soooo wrong ..Ron Paul will wipe Obama of the political map after only two tv debates ! Problem is republican nomination


Well thank you for your opinion.

I think otherwise...neither is right or wrong...both are opinion. If an Obama/Paul election happens and Obama wins...that still doesn't mean my opinion right now is "right"...if Paul wins doesn't mean your opinion was "right".

Opinions of the past don't become fact by actions of the future.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!:


Ron Paul's What If ? Remastered (now with Metallica):



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


You are soooo wrong ..Ron Paul will wipe Obama of the political map after only two tv debates ! Problem is republican nomination
Do you really think O or his handlers are stupid enough to allow O to debate RP? I wish they were that stupid, especially if it could be one with no teleprompters allowed.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Intelligence Officer: Ron Paul is right on Iran -



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Just think we spend all this money on horrible foreign diplomacy (wars, bombs,drones) and one day these countries will eventual develop nuclear power or maybe even cold fusion and then were screwed they will certainly have many favors to return.



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join