Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Dr. Paul's foreign Policy is Dangerous

page: 1
86
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+62 more 
posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Dr. Paul's foreign Policy is Dangerous, according to the so called main stream media, and other contenders for the oval office.

Dr. Paul is out of touch with his party and the American people, I hear this so often on television.

Dr. Paul doesn't want a strong national defense, another lie that blasts my ears daily.

Well the people responsible for defending our freedom, overwhelmingly support Dr. Paul.

That is not a sound bite, it is a demonstrable FACT!

If this video doesn't wake people up to the corruption of the U.S. Govt., then I don't know what will.



Right now the U.S. military is in an epidemic of suicides amongst their ranks.

Over 480 active military committed suicide in 2011, compared to the over 460 members that died from combat related injuries.

THIS IS THE SECOND YEAR IN A ROW, THAT THE NUMBER OF SUICIDES HAS SURPASSED THE NUMBER OF COMBAT RELATED DEATHS.

thebuddhistblog.blogspot.com...

www.wsws.org...

"For every death, at least five members of the armed forces were hospitalised for attempting to take their life. According to the Navy Times, 2 percent of Army; 2.3 percent of Marines and 3 percent of Navy respondents to the military’s own survey of 28,536 members from all branches reported they had attempted suicide at some point. The “Defense Survey of Health-Related Behaviors” also found “dangerous levels” of alcohol abuse and the illicit use of drugs such as pain killers by 12 percent of personnel."

abcnews.go.com...

These numbers are astounding to me.

Couple this with the fact that most military support Dr. Paul, than any other candidate, and what we have is a cry for help from the military to support them.

If you are a true American patriot, I would ask you to support the military, Bring them home, by supporting Ron Paul.

Dr. Paul would end the needless wars, unlike Obama, who said he would, but instead decided to expand the wars.

Dr. Paul, as per his own record, is incorruptible.
edit on 15-1-2012 by Hendrix92TheUniverse because: additional links
edit on 15-1-2012 by Hendrix92TheUniverse because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Well put. Of all the things people say Paul could or couldn't do as a President no one else may want to work with, this is one area the President can definitely do and do it alone by the Constitution. If electing Paul did nothing more than bring a TRUE END to the wars, contingency actions and whatever we're calling the rest of what is happening world wide, I'd vote for him by that basis alone.

As you say, Paul isn't for gutting the Military, he just agrees with a growing % of America that strength doesn't require immediate and LOCAL combat power deployed into every corner of the planet.


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Ron Paul's policies are only dangerous to TPTB. They would lose much control if RP could actually implement his policies. Thankfully, if he is elected, he can bring the troops home immediately without waiting on congress.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Hendrix92TheUniverse
 


People (military etc) are starting to look around and ask themselves what exactly they are defending and is it worth it.

For several of them the answer to those questions is "nothing and absolutely not" their only method to escape their current reality (war) and act on their new found enlightenment (peace) is to kill themselves...

now that....is sad.

The American Dream, where your either over there fighting for your life or back home fearing for you life.


+5 more 
posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I have been in one fight in my entire life. I was 12 and it was a fight with a friend over something stupid. It lasted about 5 minutes and we both looked like idiots.

So how have I gone 25 years without a single fight? Am I scary? Nope. Am I a coward? Hardly.

I stand strongly for what I believe in, but I stay out of other people's business. My friends and family are my priorities. I take care of them as best I can and will rise to their defense. When I am faced with a confrontation, I listen and talk my way out of it. Key word there.. listen.

Most importantly, I do not put myself into the middle of something that has nothing at all to do with me. This is not isolationism, I am not a hermit. This is non-interventionism. I am well liked and respected among my friends and colleagues. I offer help if I see I could be of help, but I never force my help onto people.

This principle works just as well on the international level. Roosevelt espoused this with the "speak softly and carry a big stick". Now, some may say that he was a bit of a hypocrite, given his administration's involvement in the Panamanian Revolt; however, the message is sound.

If you stand strong on your beliefs and stay out of other people's business (unless invited), then you will generally not be attacked. If you are attacked, defeat your opponent quickly and then move on.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
IMO RP is America's last hope to avoid tyranny and real revolution and/or covert guerilla warfare.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I just donated what I could.
I'd like to see that commercial aired - a lot of people I've talked to do not know that about him.
It also puts a big contrast to him the way that ad shows other top donors - it really makes him stand out.

For the life of me, I don't understand why more 'occupiers' don't support him.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Hendrix92TheUniverse
 


It's natural and healthy for people to want to defend their community. It isn't natural to obey orders.

It's natural to respect and perhaps follow wise leaders who've proven their capabilities. It isn't natural to accept characters whose history and capabilities aren't known to you personally as your 'superior officers'.

This is where the problem lies. There would be no need for the drilling and training that makes an obedient military unit if the true respect was there. They drum it into you that you don't think, you don't question, you just do what your told. Otherwise you would do what is right. Following orders that ultimately come from those who profit is wrong. So wrong the strain can lead to suicide.

Ron Paul is your Commander in Chief. You have chosen him.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Hendrix92TheUniverse
 





Right now the U.S. military is in an epidemic of suicides amongst their ranks.

Over 480 active military committed suicide in 2011, compared to the over 460 members that died from combat related injuries.

THIS IS THE SECOND YEAR IN A ROW, THAT THE NUMBER OF SUICIDES HAS SURPASSED THE NUMBER OF COMBAT RELATED DEATHS.


I've always heard more Vietnam veterans died of suicide than in the war it self. Your thread prompted me to search out if it's true. Here's stats from the American Gulf Wars Veterans Association.

Vietnam War Dead Stats

Saddens me deeply to see this still happening amongst our veterans.

Another reason we need Ron Paul as president to avert these tragic undeclared wars.
edit on 1/15/2012 by dezertdog because: content



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I truly have to question the intellectual ability of anyone who thinks Ron Paul's foreign policy is 'dangerous' as opposed to the WWIII scenario our sociopaths--both POTUS and Congress--are leading us towards.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Lots of Paul fans out tonight.

Awesome.

I have some questions. Serious questions tha no-one has given an answer yet.

What would Pauls stance be on Chinese aggression towards Taiwan?
What is Pauls stance on N. Korea? Would we be there still for S. Korea?
What is Pauls stance on Israel?
Great Britian?

Thanks in advance.

Beez



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kester
reply to post by Hendrix92TheUniverse
 


It's natural and healthy for people to want to defend their community. It isn't natural to obey orders.

It's natural to respect and perhaps follow wise leaders who've proven their capabilities. It isn't natural to accept characters whose history and capabilities aren't known to you personally as your 'superior officers'.

This is where the problem lies. There would be no need for the drilling and training that makes an obedient military unit if the true respect was there. They drum it into you that you don't think, you don't question, you just do what your told. Otherwise you would do what is right. Following orders that ultimately come from those who profit is wrong. So wrong the strain can lead to suicide.

Ron Paul is your Commander in Chief. You have chosen him.




I take exception to your way of thinking that US Servicemembers are taught not to think, but to blindly follow orders.

During my three decades of service, I questioned everything under the sun. I always tried to question intelligibly though, not emotionally. That is the way I was taught by very wise NCOs and Officers.

Sometimes I didn’t agree with the mission, but went anyway, just to try to keep my Joes alive. I could have been relieved of my duties and the responsibility would have been given to someone possibly less competent, but the mission would have gone on anyway.

By the way, I have brought everyone home intact. Everytime, and sometimes we were quite ruthless.

But you are right. People will follow those they respect…rather than appointed.

ETA: I have taken to calling those who follow blindly as lemmings, not sheeple.
edit on 15-1-2012 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Lots of Paul fans out tonight.

Awesome.

I have some questions. Serious questions tha no-one has given an answer yet.

What would Pauls stance be on Chinese aggression towards Taiwan?
What is Pauls stance on N. Korea? Would we be there still for S. Korea?
What is Pauls stance on Israel?
Great Britian?

Thanks in advance.

Beez


Thanks for the question, and I will answer on Dr. Paul's behalf. I have studied him for five years now.

Contrary to what the MSM will tell you, Dr. Paul is not anti-war, he is in fact for all wars in which are declared constitutionally by the congress.

So if Great Britain, or one of the U.S. allies was under attack, the congress would have to declare war against the aggressors, and then and only then, would Ron Paul lead the military to decimate the aggressors.
Get it over with and come home, is what he always says.

I hope that alleviates the fears of some who say that Dr. Paul is strong on national defense.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Hendrix92TheUniverse
 

Appreciate the answer.

So, in your opinion, Paul is not an isolationist? He's not a non-interventionalist?



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


That is certainly my opinion.. If GB asks us for help to fight a just war (such as her getting attacked by a foreign power), and congress agrees to it, then certainly he will help. Same with S. Korea and anyone else for that matter.

But it is a matter of being asked (and yes, a treaty such as NATO could constitute as being asked) and getting approval from congress.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 
Thanks.

I'll admit that his foreign policy stance (or at least the impression) has given me concern.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by beezzer
 


That is certainly my opinion.. If GB asks us for help to fight a just war (such as her getting attacked by a foreign power), and congress agrees to it, then certainly he will help. Same with S. Korea and anyone else for that matter.

But it is a matter of being asked (and yes, a treaty such as NATO could constitute as being asked) and getting approval from congress.


Question. What would RP do if by "Treaty" we have agreed to help allies, but Congress dithers like they usually do and waste valuable time?

What would RP do then?

I like RP domestically, but am still on the fence in regards to his foriegn policy.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Well, he would do nothing -- aside from reminding Congress of our obligations under the treaty. Most of our treaties (if not all) do have language stating that we cannot violate our constitution due to treaty obligations.

This is my assesment.. I could be wrong about what he would do, but I think I may be close.
edit on 1-15-2012 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
regarding the title, almost as dangerous as sending the troops to war in the first place?
you know the place where they DIED because of the choice to send them over there.

i'm not sure if they know what is actually dangerous? fighting a war that you created or finding the means to prevent one



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 



No offense, but that sounds like throwing a friend under the bus. Not keeping your word, which to me is tantamount. I'm not sure that I could support someone who abandons friends. This worries me.

But treaties are negotiable..so I'll keep a open mind.





new topics




 
86
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join