Ron Paul only Congressman to vote against Iranian people.

thehill.com...

The House overwhelmingly approved a resolution Friday in support of Iranian dissidents as that country’s top cleric warned protesters to end demonstrations.

The resolution was approved in a 405-1 vote, with two members voting present. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was the only lawmaker opposed to the resolution. Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and David Loebsack (D-Iowa) voted present.

And people wonder why Ron Paul is considered "kooky"? The people of Iran consider their election a sham, and Ron Paul doesn't want to support them...OK

What about the Muslim guy (Ellison) voting present? I guess he didn't want to upset the Ayatollahs?

See, the thing is -- Ron Paul doesn't get brainwashed/influenced by the mainstream media. All you see on the news these days is coverage of the Iranian protesters -- and he knows it's being hyped up for a cause. We all know the American government are just dying to find an excuse to go to war with Iran. Propaganda is all it is. Raising public support against the Iranian government.

It's working brilliantly too...

There's about as much evidence that points toward the Iranian elections being rigged as there has been the US elections in the passed. Until something more substantial comes to sight, why would he jump on the bandwagon and support the hidden agenda of those he's against?

The fact is, Ron Paul is part of a minority of American's that AREN'T 'kooks'.

[edit on 20-6-2009 by theyreadmymind]

Originally posted by Navieko
We all know the American government are just dying to find an excuse to go to war with Iran. Propaganda is all it is. Raising public support against the Iranian government.

Exactly what i've been thinking. But really what our government needs to do is sit this one out. We don't need another 'rescue operation' and occupation.
I feel the Iranian people's struggle but it's very difficult to know if we should intervene in any way at all. It's a hard situation.

[edit on 20-6-2009 by patent98310]

reply to post by RRconservative


I have a feeling his reasons are simple - That American does not have a right, and should not interfere with situations in other countries.

I agree with the logic, many do.

Ron Paul doesn't want us to interfere in other countries affairs -- and damnit, he's right.

It may sound all evil and cruel to say "I'm not going to sign this resolution to 'support the Iranian people,' but it probably also sounded unpatriotic to not sign the "patriot act."

He's right. We shouldn't get involved with Iran's affairs. We wouldn't want Iran getting involved in our affairs -- and we also had a rigged election (possibly two.)

Clean up your own mess before worrying about what others are doing.

Originally posted by Navieko
See, the thing is -- Ron Paul doesn't get brainwashed/influenced by the mainstream media. All you see on the news these days is coverage of the Iranian protesters -- and he knows it's being hyped up for a cause. We all know the American government are just dying to find an excuse to go to war with Iran. Propaganda is all it is. Raising public support against the Iranian government.

If the Iranian people overthrow the government, that means that the US won't have to. So this doesn't make sense?

People actually choosing their own government and leaders? Only a "kook" could be against that.

Raising public support against the Iranian government? How about supporting the people of Iran?

This vote of Ron Paul is justification of why most Republicans consider him "a little off".

Okay, this is where I am finding conflict with all this.

As far as Ron Paul, voting for a resolution that doesn't put into place policy or anything else is just out right stupid. It is a show of moral support. Which if you support freedom there is no reason to vote against the resolution as he did.

Offering moral support for another country and staying out of the situation are two totally different things.

State TV over in Iran is already blaming Israel, the US, the UK, it really doesn't matter. Countries are already getting blamed for mettling even though they aren't.

Good for Ron Paul. Why should he go along with something just because it's the popular thing to do.

I, too, feel like we are being bombarded with propaganda. I bet the CIA is behind the unrest in Iran. The Iranian people spoke at the polls. We need to try to quit stirring crap up.

This is pointless legislation. What the hell does it matter? I'm sure Iranians really give a damn what our Congress thinks.

Also, no one has any idea if a "revolution" would be in our bests interests. What you have here could just be another power hungry dictator in the waiting.

Besides, there are other countries that are oppressed and we don't speak out for their people.

This is all about oil and israel.

The US government doesn't give a damn about Iranians, nor do they care about Americans.

i agree with Dr Paul's vote

it is their nation, let them overthrow their dictator

they are adults let them handle it

it is not our business , and meddling in the affairs of other nations creates more problems for everyone

reply to post by muzzleflash


Ron Paul is a non-interventionalist. So he stands on principle. He stands for OUR country not theirs.

I would have done the same thing. ALthough i hope the best for Iranians..it's not my fight.

And now, what happens if the protesters are all killed and the Ayatollah remains in power?

We will be going directly against the wishes of their government which will only make relations far worse.

Think people!

[edit on 20-6-2009 by David9176]

As long as he votes FOR the AMERICAN people, I could care less what he votes for or against when it comes to the Iranians.


I mean really....the man works for the people of Texas....Not Iran!

Ron Paul's Statement on the Iran Resolution, 6/19/09

I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about "condemning" the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.

Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama's cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.

I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.

www.campaignforliberty.com...




[edit on 20-6-2009 by David9176]

Gotta agree with Ron Paul on this one.

There are dictatorships in many countries, so why is there so much focus on Iran?

I think staying out of it and letting a revolution happen naturally is the best way to bring change within a country. If America eventually went into Iran and tried what they have been trying in Afghanistan and Iraq...well they'll run into the same problems they currently face in those countries (which are epic failures for anything other then securing military bases and oil).

reply to post by RRconservative


This is how it starts. First we say, "We condemn a violent Iran."

Then we move on to, "Well, maybe we can clandestinely fund the dissidents."

Then it progresses to, "Well, it'll be OK to covertly arm them."

Then it's, "We support the legitimate government of Iran in exile, and will give them military aid."

Then it's, "We are going to assist the Iranian government in exile by sending troops."

Followed by, "We're on a mission of liberation! Somebody call the Airborne!"

Finally, "We're invading Iran. For their own good."

Maybe it's best not to go down this path and plant the seed that has led us wrong for so long.

Ron Paul sees the cycle, why don't you?

Originally posted by David9176
Ron Paul's Statement on the Iran Resolution, 6/19/09

I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.

www.campaignforliberty.com...




[edit on 20-6-2009 by David9176]

AGREED, - I consider myself a staunch constitionalist populist - and believe, as our founding fathers did, that OUR government should be

OF the people, by the people and FOR the people.

NOT

of the money, by the money and for the money

And the USA is NOT a democracy, - Because the media is controlled and public opinion (even on ATS) covertly manipulated, then all you have is a plutocracy with democratic trappings

I didn't realize we create bills just to SAY #. Why can't we just..... SAY IT!

Republicans are itching for another war to "spread the glorious freedom" and the Iranian GOV. hates us (because of # like this) already. Iranians don't need our congress' help. They are fully capable of handling it themselves. All this bill does is provoke the extremist Iranian regime currently in power. It doesn't do much for the protesters of the people. Except add more anger to the fists that keep coming at them. We need to stop policing the damn world.


Meanwhile, no one cares that a North Korean ship is headed for Hawaii.

Originally posted by molotov
I didn't realize we create bills just to SAY #. Why can't we just..... SAY IT!

Republicans are itching for another war to "spread the glorious freedom" and the Iranian GOV. hates us (because of # like this) already. Iranians don't need our congress' help. They are fully capable of handling it themselves. All this bill does is provoke the extremist Iranian regime currently in power. It doesn't do much for the protesters of the people. Except add more anger to the fists that keep coming at them. We need to stop policing the damn world.


Meanwhile, no one cares that a North Korean ship is headed for Hawaii.

They are motivated to make us "believe" "for our own good", because the only solution this "administration" has for the current economic meltdown, and even worse economic conditions arriving shortly is

WAR


[edit on 20-6-2009 by seataka]

reply to post by molotov


I agree with most of what you said. But the vote on this resolution was 405-1. Yet you singled out republicans. Come on man, the democrats are just as guilty on this.