Can someone help me out here? [debate]

[salietata]

Someone has asked me for some answers about Dr. Paul.. I thought I'd get everyone opinions on it.

and I quote..

"Do you really want to leave the UN, like Ron says he'd do? I guess I don't see how its necessarily a bad thing, or how it infringes on American sovereignty.
They told the United States that a war with Iraq would be illegal. Their interventions in Kosovo and Darfur seem like good things to me. The World Water Assessment Program, the Girls Education Initiative, the current peacekeeping missions in Timor, Cyprus, and a half dozen African countries all seem like good ideas to me. The United States doesn't care about those things and even if we did, we don't have any credibility to actually make a difference. Sure, they don't always rubber stamp anything we want. But since the United States is as likely as any country to fall under the influence of a douche bag leader (like our current frat boy) I think some sort of forum where nations can go to discuss their differences and to act as a check and balance on each other is a generally good thing. Not to mention the fact that they do good work.

Further on the isolationist path, don't you find it at all bothersome that Ron Paul has said that we should not have gotten involved to help stop the Rawandan genocide or the one in Darfur right now? It seems to me that to be rich and powerful and safe and to look down at your neighbors getting slaughtered without offering any help at all, when you could offer plenty, is wrong. I sure hope other countries don't take his view if we need their help during some crisis.
Besides, the UN does very little to actually affect the behavior of the United States anyway, it seems to me. We ignored them and the rest of our allies when we attacked a non-threatening country that had done us no wrong. We currently owe the UN about a half a billion dollars according to the terms of the treaty we signed and ratified. We just aren't paying. What are they going to do? Nothing. How is that compromising American sovereignty? How does anything the UN does compromise American sovereignty? It sounds like empty rhetoric to me.

Some of his positions regarding personal liberty are attractive and I appreciate them, but the Democrats all echo the great majority of those sentiments. Ron's wretched record on environmental issues, however, is not matched by the Democrats. Why doesn't his website say what his positions are about these issues? Does he even have positions on them? All he's got is something about suing companies who damage your land and how he doesn't think national forests should be logged. Not logging national forests doesn't sound so over-the-top concerned about the environment. It seems obvious. And how do I sue We-Energies, Exxon Mobil, GM, and China for the unnecessarily high levels of CO2 that they emit or encourage to be emitted? By the time my land is three degrees warmer, it'll already be way too late, won't it? What if i can't afford to sue all these people? What about the citizen who doesn't own land but who is damaged by the effects of the warming? It all seems really half baked. A coordinated policy of cooperation for the common good just seems like such a more effective and reasonable way to tackle the problem."

 

[partypooper]

Their interventions in Kosovo and Darfur seem like good things to me. The World Water Assessment Program, the Girls Education Initiative, the current peacekeeping missions in Timor, Cyprus, and a half dozen African countries all seem like good ideas to me.

once upon a time, "to each according to his needs" and planned economy also sounded like good ideas. whether the stated goal sounds good is almost irrelevant. the relevant issue is what happens in practice, at what cost and who should be bearing that cost.

It seems to me that to be rich and powerful and safe and to look down at your neighbors getting slaughtered without offering any help at all, when you could offer plenty, is wrong.

countries are not persons and do not have relationships and moral obligations - only individuals do. if your friend feels like helping his neighbors and people across the globe he is free to do so. if he thinks it is wrong for him to play computer games while somebody else is slaughtered he should stop playing and help. but he should leave other people out of it, least of all use the force of government to impose his moral feelings on others.

 

[Ron Paul Fan]

We should NEVER go to war to enforce UN Resolutions! DECLARE WAR if you want to go to war! Go to war, FIGHT IT and WIN IT! But don't go to war to enforce UN Resolutions BECAUSE THE WARS NEVER END! We need to start putting America first!

 

[Fyretrohl]

Here is the answer I come up with, but it may not work for you.

'America and American's should do something about these tragedies. But, the Federal Government was NEVER given the authority by the American people to act outside of our own internal interests. This was done to ensure we did not end up with a Government who would decide to act in its own interest, instead of the peoples. It was to ensure we did not end up with America and American's rights pushed down for other peoples. Look at it this way. It is easily acknowledged that our infrastructure is crumbling, we have too many homeless here, and a litany of other negative issues at home. Imagine the good we could do if those billions of dollars going over sees were available to help our people and situation at home first. Then, imagine even more, the people having the money. They could choose to help the homeless at home OR the people in Darfur. But, no matter what, it should not be the Government doing it. At least, not without the People giving them the authority to spend our money that way.'

 

[malkusm]

Concerning the UN:

"The UN is neither wise nor neutral. All of the member nations have national interests that don’t simply disappear when their representatives enter the UN general assembly hall. Like any government or quasi-government body, the UN is rife with corruption and backroom deals. Worst of all, it serves as a forum for rampant anti-Americanism. Perhaps the time has finally come when more Americans will choose to rethink our participation."
-Rep. Ron Paul, 2003

As far as the environmental stuff, try convincing them that global warming, etc. is just that, a GLOBAL issue - and that by restricting the federal government's spending and investments in private interests, we would be reducing our dependence on oil, furthering our knowledge and use of alternative energy sources, etc. by allowing a free market to decide if they want to pay $6.00/gallon, or spend that money that they spend trying to find more oil in the earth on researching new energy sources.

Also make it clear that Dr. Paul supports state regulations on emissions, etc., but he thinks it's not an issue of the federal government. I think a lot of people hear some of his issues and hear him say "limit the federal government" and they assume that these things will not be regulated AT ALL. We do have smaller, more localized governments to handle these issues...

 

[Talldude1412]

Someone has asked me for some answers about Dr. Paul.. I thought I'd get everyone opinions on it.

and I quote..

"Do you really want to leave the UN, like Ron says he'd do? I guess I don't see how its necessarily a bad thing, or how it infringes on American sovereignty.
They told the United States that a war with Iraq would be illegal. Their interventions in Kosovo and Darfur seem like good things to me. The World Water Assessment Program, the Girls Education Initiative, the current peacekeeping missions in Timor, Cyprus, and a half dozen African countries all seem like good ideas to me. The United States doesn't care about those things and even if we did, we don't have any credibility to actually make a difference. Sure, they don't always rubber stamp anything we want. But since the United States is as likely as any country to fall under the influence of a douche bag leader (like our current frat boy) I think some sort of forum where nations can go to discuss their differences and to act as a check and balance on each other is a generally good thing. Not to mention the fact that they do good work.

Further on the isolationist path, don't you find it at all bothersome that Ron Paul has said that we should not have gotten involved to help stop the Rawandan genocide or the one in Darfur right now? It seems to me that to be rich and powerful and safe and to look down at your neighbors getting slaughtered without offering any help at all, when you could offer plenty, is wrong. I sure hope other countries don't take his view if we need their help during some crisis.
Besides, the UN does very little to actually affect the behavior of the United States anyway, it seems to me. We ignored them and the rest of our allies when we attacked a non-threatening country that had done us no wrong. We currently owe the UN about a half a billion dollars according to the terms of the treaty we signed and ratified. We just aren't paying. What are they going to do? Nothing. How is that compromising American sovereignty? How does anything the UN does compromise American sovereignty? It sounds like empty rhetoric to me.

Some of his positions regarding personal liberty are attractive and I appreciate them, but the Democrats all echo the great majority of those sentiments. Ron's wretched record on environmental issues, however, is not matched by the Democrats. Why doesn't his website say what his positions are about these issues? Does he even have positions on them? All he's got is something about suing companies who damage your land and how he doesn't think national forests should be logged. Not logging national forests doesn't sound so over-the-top concerned about the environment. It seems obvious. And how do I sue We-Energies, Exxon Mobil, GM, and China for the unnecessarily high levels of CO2 that they emit or encourage to be emitted? By the time my land is three degrees warmer, it'll already be way too late, won't it? What if i can't afford to sue all these people? What about the citizen who doesn't own land but who is damaged by the effects of the warming? It all seems really half baked. A coordinated policy of cooperation for the common good just seems like such a more effective and reasonable way to tackle the problem."

Alright, first the UN.

The UN as a forum and open field for international debate is fine, and Ron Paul openly endorses discussion with foreign nations. What he does not like are large exterior Institutions that try and press others to their will, including the US. If the UN was only a forum, there would be nothing wrong with it. But when US military personnel can be "assigned" to UN military groups, and the UN partakes in measures to oppose our nations choices, then it gets personal. No other nations should be able to override the choices of our nations elected leaders. The UN has become more of a bureaucratic political entity than even the US could dream of becoming.

Ron Paul would push towards leaving the UN, so that we could openly and plainly hold dialogues with foreign nations, without some large international bureaucracy overlooking us.

Ron Paul does not believe it is the place of our military to better other nations. What will happen in darfur or other areas if we intervene and subdue the violent groups, I would wager my arm that within the following decade the previously assaulted groups would take up arms against their old oppressors and start massacring them. This is the historical tale of taking revenge for revenge for revenge, etc. If private US citizens wish to fly other their and take up arms for these people then GREAT! But our military intervention won't stop the cycle. (By not going through the UN to help the beleaguered people we would actually help them a great deal more. Less money getting sucked into the bureaucracy vacuum.)

 

[salietata]

thanks for the replies everyone! I knew I could count on you

 

[daikonv]

one example is the federal mandate that bushed signed yesterday on gas milage regulation. for those that are unclear on the subject, the mandate says that car gas mileage has to get 35 mpg by 2020. while this sounds all nice and fuzzy, it interferes with individual states trying to come up with their own regulation attempts. California wants to regulate fuel emissions themselves but the EPA says that Bush's plan is sufficient, even though the state's plan would get things done quicker. California has found difficulty trying to setup laws on their own multiple times to clean the air due the federal government. Leave it to the states please.

 

[amy31416]

What I would say is this:

1. We simply can't afford it. The debt is now into the Trillions, much of which is owed to the Chinese. We have a lot of violence here in the US in inner cities that needs to be cleaned up. That should be our first priority as far as violence in the world goes. If we go into financial collapse, then we won't be able to help anyone.

2. Individuals can choose where and to what causes they want to send their money and support to, rather than the government taking it from us via taxes and deciding for us that they want to help in Darfur (which is a noble cause) or Iraq (not a noble cause.) The government can and does decide to use our money for more harm in the world than good.

3. The government, as a whole will decide whether or not we stay in the UN, with a much more open process of the pros and cons. I believe he would need Congressional support to get out of the UN. The good aspect of him wanting to get out is that he also wants us out of the less than sparkling world organizations, such as the CFR.

My own thoughts on that differ: I believe we should stay in some of these organizations just to keep tabs on what's going on, even if it's a bad one. But I digress.

I hope that helps a bit, I don't know if I've covered all of your points, but I believe that I'm in line with what Ron Paul would say.

 

[Talldude1412]

Second the Environment:

Ron Paul's policies adhere specifically to the federal govt. We all saw what just got passed in the Congress. Apparently by their royal decree we may no longer use certain light bulbs or drive sports cars. Thanks my all powerful and ever wise masters. ::sarcasm!!!::

Ron Paul's policy is that if someone pollutes your property it is something you should raise heck over. Just by showing that if they make a mistake and pollute they will pay big time, will force large corporations to be very careful about their actions or face massive legal expenses (class action suits). The historic model would tell us that federal gov't environmental regulation is usually corrupted for some specific interest group to benefit from (lots of specific companies benefit when you force coal to get cleaner namely oil industries).

 

[mcgraw_wv]

The Asnwer to anything UN is that we want less government, not another layer. When you are a member of the UN, you must follow the UN resolutions they pass. Ron Paul would like to take on issues at the local level and let local communities decide for themselves if they wish to adhere to UN resolutions.

Some communities could use the UN as an advisory voice, or some may ignore it all together.

 

[zzxf]

I too have concerns about his seeming lack of passion for the environment, since, as an outdoor enthusiast, the environment is hugely important to me (and, as a defense attorney who sees my fair share of frivolous litigation, I hardly think lawsuits are the answer). But what I keep coming back to is the fact that government so often does more harm than good when they try to make drastic changes. It has been argued, for example, that the welfare state has been a hugely destructive force for families, particular poor and minority families -- if a woman can get more money from the state if she's single and has a kid than if she's married, why should she get married? There have been a number of reforms over the years that have helped, but you can never go backwards -- I've heard from people who are working with the inner city poor that women still believe they will be better off if they have children and don't work. That's just one example. In the environmental arena, the EU prided itself on instituting a cap and trade system to curb carbon emissions. The result? Nothing. They gave out too many credits, so no one ultimately felt the need to reduce their emissions. When the government tries to do something, it usually gets it wrong.

On the other hand, individual and corporate efforts to reduce carbon emissions and to conserve have been somewhat successful. More companies are making an effort to "go green," because that's what the market now dictates, and individuals are facing more and more social pressure to recycle, conserve, buy more fuel efficient cars, etc. States have also begun instituting their own programs, including cap and trade systems, without any coercion from the federal government.

Finally, as for logging -- it may seem intuitive not to destroy our National Forests, but both parties continue to subsidize logging in National Forests. It's ridiculous, and makes me angry. But that's the problem with the mainstream parties -- they are so entrenched in special interests that they make illogical decisions. Like subsidizing tobacco farmers just to turn around and tax cigarettes.

In the end, I too am somewhat enchanted by the environmental promises the candidates make. But then I remember two things -- 1) Not only will their plans not work, but they probably won't even try to follow through -- are we not sick of being lied to yet? 2) By cutting the military presence overseas and the size of our federal government, Paul will probably end up cutting carbon emissions and other pollution just as much as some of the other programs.

Hope that helps.