American Conservative's Feb. cover story: Ron Paul and His Enemies (UPDATED W/ LINK)

[Brett85]

+1, and one of those few times I agree 100% with Austrian.

So you agree with not responding with force when we get attacked? That goes way beyond non interventionism into pacifism. That's an ideology that Ron Paul strongly rejects. He voted for the war in Afghanistan and supported military action after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I never said that United States foreign policy wasn't at least partly responsible for provoking the attacks at Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center. But that still doesn't mean that we can simply allow others to attack us and not fight back. An example would be if you go and pick a fight with someone. You walk up to someone and hit them in the nose, and then they just start pummeling you and beating you to death. Even though you may have started the fight, you still have to fight back in order to defend yourself and save your life. Not responding militarily to an attack on our own soil would be pacifism, regardless of whether we provoked the attack or not.

I think you lack reading comprehension and or just like to attack straw men and make yourself feel somehow superior. Such intellectual rigour this one possesses.

 

[Brett85]

I think you lack reading comprehension and or just like to attack straw men and make yourself feel somehow superior. Such intellectual rigour this one possesses.

No, I responded to exactly what you said. You said that the Revolutionary War was the only war we've ever fought that was justified.

 

[Paulitics 2011]

Unfortunately, the majority of the Republican Party is probably still "pro war," including some of my relatives. It's quite sad.

His point is that no one calls themselves "pro-war", just like you don't have self identified anti-choice or anti-lifers. Neo-cons call themselves "pro-defense", operating on the fallacy that more wars make us safer.

 

[Matthanuf06]

I think you lack reading comprehension and or just like to attack straw men and make yourself feel somehow superior. Such intellectual rigour this one possesses.

The issue is if Paul or a like minded person becomes POTUS the slate is not wiped clean. All this "hatred" is baked in. He can't undo the past. We could easily get attacked a year into a Paul presidency, not because of his policies but due to policies of the past. So what then? It's our "fault" but do we fight back? We can't live in so,me fantasy land where if free market non-interventionalist policies are implemented that the world will forget the past and suddenly love us, never mind the fact that some madmen may not like that American policy in and of itself

 

[Avalon]

Ron Paul voted for military action in Afghanistan, not for removing the Taliban or an occupation. He sponsored his own bill proposing the use of marque and reprisal instead of war: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.+3076:_blank

As for WW2, as more documents become declassified it appears more and more likely that we provoked Japan to enter war with Germany. The McCollum Memo outlines the idea well. That said, after Japan bombed us I think we had a right to respond militarily. But we likely could have still avoided war with Germany despite their alliance because they definitely didn't want war with us (at least, not while they had their hands full).

 

[goldwater's ghost]

ron paul has said repeatedly if there is an act undertaken by a foreign entity that might require force in response he would take it to congress to vote on whether to declare war or not. Then, if the choice is war, we go in, blow things up, accomplish the payback and head home. the only two areas he really differs is 1) we have to actually declare a war and 2) there will be no long prolonged stay, no nation building. we are there to kill and go home

 

[Brett85]

ron paul has said repeatedly if there is an act undertaken by a foreign entity that might require force in response he would take it to congress to vote on whether to declare war or not. Then, if the choice is war, we go in, blow things up, accomplish the payback and head home. the only two areas he really differs is 1) we have to actually declare a war and 2) there will be no long prolonged stay, no nation building. we are there to kill and go home

Yep, that's my position as well. It's different than the position that some of the anarchists here have.

 

[Avalon]

Yep, that's my position as well. It's different than the position that some of the anarchists here have.

And that's fine, but it's still a stretch to call either WW2 or Afghanistan just wars.

 

[Brett85]

And that's fine, but it's still a stretch to call either WW2 or Afghanistan just wars.

Then there is no such thing as a "just war" if we can't even fight back when we get attacked. What you and a few others advocate goes way beyond non intervention or anything Ron Paul supports.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

So you agree with not responding with force when we get attacked? That goes way beyond non interventionism into pacifism. That's an ideology that Ron Paul strongly rejects. He voted for the war in Afghanistan and supported military action after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

I agree with not instigating force by provoking war, which is what FDR did to manipulate Japan into retaliating militarily. Absent that initiation of hostilities, we most likely would not have been attacked.

 

[ZanZibar]

I want a high res copy of that cover.

 

[BrittanySligar]

Ron slipped up in a CNN interview recently and actually said he's "anti-war". the context was something like "they might put you in the list if you belong to a certain group, or maybe if you're anti-war.. I'm antiwar, are they going to put me on the list?!" with regard to the president targeting American citizens who are suspected terrorists.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ron slipped up in a CNN interview recently and actually said he's "anti-war". the context was something like "they might put you in the list if you belong to a certain group, or maybe if you're anti-war.. I'm antiwar, are they going to put me on the list?!" with regard to the president targeting American citizens who are suspected terrorists.

Ron didn't slip up. Ron is anti-war. The hawks always have a problem acknowledging this fact.

 

[Southron]

I subscribe, and have often said that everybody here should subscribe. They're a non-profit, and they need money to keep running.

I subscribe also. Sure beats National Review.

 

[Brett85]

I agree with not instigating force by provoking war, which is what FDR did to manipulate Japan into retaliating militarily. Absent that initiation of hostilities, we most likely would not have been attacked.

Even if we hadn't been attacked by Japan, military action would've been justified due to the fact that Hitler was invading country after country, trying to take over the world, and trying to exterminate the entire Jewish population. I think there has to be an exception to every ideology. While I believe in non intervention in general, I think exceptions have to be made in extraordinary situations. I believe that we should have far less government intervention in foreign affairs and far less government intervention in the economy, but having 100% non intervention in both areas at all times is unrealistic in my opinion. I think issues like Hitlers' attempt to take over the world in WWII is why a lot of Republicans won't support Ron. They think that some of his non interventionist views just go too far, because he won't make an exception to his views in extraordinary situations.

 

[G-Wohl]

He's anti-war. War only as a last measure.

OK, people need to stop doing this right now. If you're going to say that a person is "anti" something, then that means they are unequivocally against that thing. It doesn't matter the circumstances.

Anti is defined in the dictionary as: a prefix meaning “against,” “opposite of,” “antiparticle of,” used in the formation of compound words

You cannot say one is "anti"-war and then say that they support war in some way or fashion. The term "anti" is significant because it means that somebody is entirely opposed to the concept of some policy, and saying that Ron Paul is anti-war is an intentional attempt at trying to have your cake and eat it too. He is not against war at all times and under all circumstances, so he is not anti-war. You can't just say he's anti-war and then qualify that by saying he isn't.

Seriously people, how are we supposed to sell Ron Paul's message when the people on these forums can't even comprehend the basic labels conventionally attached to the candidate's political philosophy? What we say matters and making the claim that Ron Paul is "anti"-war is a very dangerous label to prescribe, especially when it is untrue. Saying Ron Paul is "anti"-war will get us no votes.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

TAC is a good magazine, not as good as some others, but not too objectionable. Then again, I prefer The Freeman, Journal Libertarian Studies, and the Independent Review for more political periodicals.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

OK, people need to stop doing this right now. If you're going to say that a person is "anti" something, then that means they are unequivocally against that thing. It doesn't matter the circumstances.

Anti is defined in the dictionary as: a prefix meaning “against,” “opposite of,” “antiparticle of,” used in the formation of compound words

You cannot say one is "anti"-war and then say that they support war in some way or fashion. The term "anti" is significant because it means that somebody is entirely opposed to the concept of some policy, and saying that Ron Paul is anti-war is an intentional attempt at trying to have your cake and eat it too. He is not against war at all times and under all circumstances, so he is not anti-war. You can't just say he's anti-war and then qualify that by saying he isn't.

Seriously people, how are we supposed to sell Ron Paul's message when the people on these forums can't even comprehend the basic labels conventionally attached to the candidate's political philosophy? What we say matters and making the claim that Ron Paul is "anti"-war is a very dangerous label to prescribe, especially when it is untrue. Saying Ron Paul is "anti"-war will get us no votes.

If that is your goal then just sell Ron as a Neo-Con to Neo-Cons. Then you'll get all that goodylicious Grinch support. Yum Yum. Ron has called himself anti-war many times, and is steadfastly opposed to nearly all wars, and especially war Propaganda and acts leading to war such as sanctions, interference, and imperialism. Further, anti-war is a commonly used word not to describe a pacifist, but someone who advocates peace, and Dr. Paul certainly does.

Further, I never understood the irrational pejorative of the word pacifist. I'd much rather live in a Quaker community than any South Carolina suburb.

 

[Brett85]

If that is your goal then just sell Ron as a Neo-Con to Neo-Cons. Then you'll get all that goodylicious Grinch support. Yum Yum. Ron has called himself anti-war many times, and is steadfastly opposed to nearly all wars, and especially war Propaganda and acts leading to war such as sanctions, interference, and imperialism. Further, anti-war is a commonly used word not to describe a pacifist, but someone who advocates peace, and Dr. Paul certainly does.

Further, I never understood the irrational pejorative of the word pacifist. I'd much rather live in a Quaker community than any South Carolina suburb.

You can reject a pacifist ideology without being a "neo-con." Like many others here, you have absolutely no idea what that term actually means.