It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Dr. Paul's foreign Policy is Dangerous

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 11:56 AM

Originally posted by rogerstigers
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.

If I could give you a thousand stars, I would.

Very well said, my friend.

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 11:57 AM
Thank you for posting this video. I truly believe that Ron Paul is the man we need in the oval office to save this country. We are on the brink of collapse. No one is going to change the game like Ron Paul. Obama, Romney, Gingrich, it doesn't really matter.

I'm not saying they're bad people and Ron Paul is a saint. I'm saying that no one is going to actually get the job done like Ron Paul.

I fear there isn't much time left for our once great nation if we do not see Ron Paul as the next President. Time will tell. I hope I'm wrong.

May God bless (and have mercy on) America and us all.
edit on 16-1-2012 by DarkATi because: Punctuation correction.


posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:16 PM

Originally posted by beezzer
Lots of Paul fans out tonight.


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.


The stance of any 2 cent politician should be, let them worth themselves out, if they kill each other or they invade each other its NONE of your business. Let me ask you a question, if having food on your table depends on killing a bunch of people, your policies are wrong, IF HAVING FOOD on your table depends on having money at HOME instead of wasting it elsewhere what would you do? the USA is Broke, you need the $$$$ wasted on stupid invasions and make the internal economy better.... but maybe I am just a fool who thinks having a mess home is more important than invading other countries...

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:27 PM
When I saw that title, I thought I was going to have to rant at someone. But nevermind, Ron Paul 2012, go Ron Paul!

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:45 PM
Cant be any more dangerous than Obama or Bush's foreign policy.

Take it from an unbiased Canadain, Bush made you all look racist and intolerant, Obama made you all look helpless...

If you elect Mitt, were done feeling sorry for you. To the rest of the world, its not even a presidental election, its YOU, the american people, making YOUR decision on what foreign policy YOU want to represent your country.

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by Hendrix92TheUniverse

Congress is totally ridiculous in my mind.Someone who wants less war and better foreign relationships in return they dare call dangerous. They might not agree with him sure that is everybody's right but it is also everyone's right to question their motives as to why they do not want to agree with him.

Ron paul is only a danger to the established money makers and his biggest enemy is the not so federal 'Federal reserve', a privately owned bank.The one president that signed the federal reserve act (Woodrow wilson) publicly apologized for doing so (which had zero effect of course by then). Then the only president that was effectively removing their grip on the united stated by creating and signing Executive order 11110 and printing dollars that were for once not created by the federal reserve bank got slaughtered in a turkey shoot.(The day after his death the very first thing J.F.K's vice president Lyndon B. Johnson's did was sign away the kennedy dollar bill)

Coincidentally Ron paul is the first person eligible for a presidency that has literally spoken out that he wants to remove the federal reserve act.

Ron paul is as dangerous as president John F.kennedy.

I support that 'dangerous' stance and willingly accept the status of 'Terrorist' for doing so and stand by these 2 men mentioned side's.


edit on 16-1-2012 by Rafe_ because: Punctuation

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:06 PM

Originally posted by beanandginger
1. If any other GOP candidate had the demographic trending that Ron Paul is showing with New Voters, Young Voters and Independents the GOP and MSM would be salivating but they are both employing an all out media blitz to convince us that Mitt Romney is unstoppable as the nominee because he won Iowa by 8 votes (which may be contested) and because he won New Hampshire (which is practically his home state) by a large margin as expected. Reverse the Iowa win and award it to Santorum and then lets see what happens in states not so pro-Romney and you have quite a different story. The deographics are extremely upside for Paul, nobody is a clear front runner yet and Romney, Santorum and Paul are basically tied.

2. The MSM has come full circle with their coverage. Their playbook so far;

a. Ignore Ron Paul’s rise in the polls, and when that fails
b. Label Ron Paul a kook, and when that fails
c. Label Ron Paul a racist, and when that fails
d. Label Ron Paul’s foreign policy as “dangerous, and when that fails
e. Advise Huntsman to stay out of Iowa race so as not to split Romneys support, and when that fails
f. Bombard the airwaves with pro Romney “news” pieces, and when that fails
g. Advise Perry to stay in the race so his supporters will not gravitate to Ron Paul, and when that fails
h. Bombard the airwaves with comments that Ron Paul can’t win and is only looking for a platform
speech at the RNC convention, and when that fails
i. Bombard the airwaves with pro Romney “news” pieces, AGAIN, and when that fails
j. Ignore Ron Paul’s rise in the polls and especially among the voters that the GOP covets the most
New Voters, Youth and Independents.

3. Ron Paul can realize a meteoric rise if he makes 2 statements;

a. Too many people think the USA and specifically Republicans are war mongers and crusaders and based on the Pentagon leading the Bush AND Obama administrations around by the nose - I tend to agree. Ron Paul needs to expand his position on foreign policy platform to explain that he supports a strong defense but that does not mean nation building or regime change. Since when does being Republican mean supporting nation building and regime change. We need to know Ron Paul beileives in a strong national defense – that he’s not too slow to pull the trigger, but also that he’s not too QUICK to pull the trigger.
b. As everyone knows there exists a great divide between the rich in this country and everyone else, whether you count yourself in the 99%, 58%, 43%, etc. The federal government of the USA is facilitating that divide, has created a wall that prevents the ascension of the poor / middle class into the wealthy class. Mr. Paul please be our voice in the spirit of Ronald Reagan in sending the message to Washington – “Please tear down that wall” that is the federal bureaucracy, that prevents growth, that prohibits free trade, that prohibits entrepreneurialism and that dampens the human spirit of self accomplishment thru individual achievement.

Someone is paying attention!
Post of the week winner right here!

Just let me add that what's even more dangerous is our debt. If anyone thinks we will continue to survive as a nation continuing in this direction, go right ahead and vote for Obama or Romney. My Old-Man always says,"go ahead and vote for them, you'll get exactly what you deserve!"

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:04 PM
reply to post by Hendrix92TheUniverse

Throughout the Vietnam war and after about 200.000 US soldiers committed suicide. Soldier suicide is not the fault of ron paul.

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 11:34 PM
reply to post by Hendrix92TheUniverse

So ours now ( start wars with multiple countries ) is better ?

i mean seriously?

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 12:13 AM

Originally posted by hadriana
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.

wait, are you talking about the OWS movement?
i went to one of their "End the Fed" march and i saw a few people carrying Ron Paul posters.
i talked to many of them as well and many of them supported RP. im an occupy supporter and im pro RP, loved the guy since 2006.

heres a pic, look closely and you'll see.

edit on 17-1-2012 by OUTofSTEPwithTHEworld because: add picture.

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 11:37 AM
I agree with Ron Paul. Bring our military home. stop getting inlvolved in other countries disputes. End foreign aid.

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 11:52 AM
While I am all for ending these conflicts and wars, I do believe that shutting down our overseas bases is a VERY bad idea. That is one of many reasons why I would not vote for Ron Paul.

And by the way, that does not make me "anti" anything. Just an opposing view that does not agree with Ron Paul.

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 12:28 PM

Originally posted by monkofmimir
reply to post by beezzer

how much does it cost America every year in blood, money and reputation to play policeman. Yes the military industrial complex and the oil companies make a killing off of it but everyone else in America looses. It is in Americas own best interests to stop being the policemen of the world.

One way the US could stay a policeman AND gain respect worldwide is by demanding the same standards on US companies whether they operate locally or abroad.

Should the US decide to procecute an oil company and fine them billions or even imprison the top bosses when they polute half countries or kill off small tribes to get their grubby mits on resources, then we'd see an increase in respect.

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:25 PM
How can a peaceful approach be dangerous? What they are not saying in the medias, is that US provoke people so hard, that they can´t do anything but fight back...

That´s logic for three year olds

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:58 PM

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
While I am all for ending these conflicts and wars, I do believe that shutting down our overseas bases is a VERY bad idea. That is one of many reasons why I would not vote for Ron Paul.

And by the way, that does not make me "anti" anything. Just an opposing view that does not agree with Ron Paul.

Translation: I am broke and about to be homeless but I think getting rid of my fancy car with high payments and stopping eating out every night is a bad idea....

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:59 AM
On the issue of "It's dangerous for the USA to not play policeman-of-the-world":

1) Our current foreign policy doesn't make us any friends in China, Russia, most of South America and most of the Middle East. Do you think that is wise?

2) Our current foreign policy takes emphasis away from securing our borders (which are currently wide open and unprotected - all directions of the compass) while provoking people that already disliked us into murderous rage. Do you think that is wise?

3) The only products of note that the USA manufactures are weapons, microcode and entertainment. Do you think that is wise?

I can think of half a dozen people right away (including myself) that could do a better job on foreign policy than our theoretically elected leaders have done and continue to do. And not just foreign policy. Out of all the people in the limelight that I have listened to so far, RP has the sanest stance on foreign policy. He will have my vote for that reason, among many other reasons.

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:58 AM

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
While I am all for ending these conflicts and wars, I do believe that shutting down our overseas bases is a VERY bad idea. That is one of many reasons why I would not vote for Ron Paul.

And by the way, that does not make me "anti" anything. Just an opposing view that does not agree with Ron Paul.

I respect your point a view, but do youI think we should continue to fund, at the cost of our children and grandchildren expense, the cost of all bases, and future conflicts? Should we continue perpetual war, and make sure the military industrial complex continues to grow and see record profits?

Should we continue to fund and give foreign aid to countries and government's while American's struggle to survive here at home?

I for one, do not think so. We need to focus on our selves, and let other nations do the same. We need REAL CHANGE, not that status quo.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in