LP VP's opinions of Ron Paul (Listen Up)

[davagd0284]

This is a blog posting from about one year ago on Wayne Allyn Root's website. He gives his reasons for why Ron Paul did not catch on with the masses. I don't object to his opinion, but it seems as if he hasn't taken in the facts regarding Ron's stance on this issue and is against the Libertarian platform regarding Foreign policy. I was thinking about voting for Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root but this may make me reconsider:

http://www.millionairerepublican.com/blog/index.php?m=07&y=07&entry=entry070723-081824

To the others who have already read this: What are you thoughts?

For the first-timers: Could this decision impact you voting for the Barr/Root ticket?

 

[Dorfsmith]

Why they chose Root is beyond me. It was hard enough for me to vote for Barr but Root just about ruins it.

 

[goldstandard]

His view on 'the war on terror' is total BS.

 

[davagd0284]

I totally agree. They didn't just nominate one individual who doesn't line up with the party, it seems as if they nominated two! For you to call the man a hero, and then state that he is uninformed and ignorant doesn't make any sense. And on top of that, they want the people who supported Paul in the primary season to vote LP in the general election!!! What's up with that?

 

[goldstandard]

I totally agree. They didn't just nominate one individual who doesn't line up with the party, it seems as if they nominated two! For you to call the man a hero, and then state that he is uninformed and ignorant doesn't make any sense. And on top of that, they want the people who supported Paul in the primary season to vote LP in the general election!!! What's up with that?

Easy question.

Don't vote for Barr/Root.

 

[mrchubbs]

I enthusiastically support Barr and not so enthusiastically support Root.

I'm voting for Barr. No matter what the history is.

He is spreading Ron Paul's message.
And he's doing it in the main stream media.
Good enough for me.

Enjoy.

 

[goldstandard]

They have been neoconned.

 

[literatim]

Barr's 'solution' for Iran:

Positive steps could include strengthening economic and political pressure on Iran, and increased efforts to quietly but actively build on the deep base of political understanding that already exists among a large segment of the Iranian population (and including the more than one million Iranian-Americans).

 

[Hurricane Bruiser]

Well Root does make some very valid observations ragarding the WOT. I have always, and still do believe that our policies are only PARTLY to blame. The people we have been fighting against are evil and sadistic and it is hard to argue otherwise. The real question is how best to fight against them. What we are doing now just seems to increase their recruiting.

I would agree that the perception that Ron Paul is weak in this area hurt him quite a bit with certain people, but it also helped with a lot of other people.

I'll support Barr/Root in Nov. because the others are FAR worse.

 

[mrchubbs]

Barr's 'solution' for Iran:

That's called diplomacy. The same thing Ron Paul supports.

 

[literatim]

That's called diplomacy. The same thing Ron Paul supports.

"strengthening economic and political pressure" is not diplomacy. Sanctions are not diplomacy.

"We should seek to promote the Jeffersonian ideals of friendly commerce with all nations, and entangling alliances with none." - Ron Paul

"Sanctions are an act of war."- Ron Paul

 

[SeanEdwards]

"strengthening economic and political pressure" is not diplomacy. Sanctions are not diplomacy.

Yes they are.

"Sanctions are an act of war."- Ron Paul

Hyperbole.


And furthermore,

The Congress shall have Power ...

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

 

[literatim]

Yes they are.

No they aren't. Sanctions are coercion.

Hyperbole.

So you think what Ron Paul says is hyperbole?

And furthermore,

The Congress shall have Power ...

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

Congress has the power to declare war too, doesn't mean we should.

 

[SeanEdwards]

No they aren't. Sanctions are coercion.

You're wrong. Not doing business with someone is a choice. I don't watch fox news. That's not an act of war. That's my personal sanction against their shit. If our elected representatives choose the same policy with a foreign nation it's the same thing. And it's entirely constitutional. Some sanctions might be misguided or foolish, but they clearly are a tool of diplomacy.

So you think what Ron Paul says is hyperbole?

I hope that particular comment was hyperbole, because it was clearly not factual. And anyone can research it. Trade barriers have never been an act of war. Blockades are an act of war, but that is a very different thing.

 

[yaz]

People just blindly accept that sanctions are great, because "it's better than going to war".

But the problem is, sanctions don't work, and like Ron Paul said, they are an act of war!

Did you know that we had sanctions in Iraq for 9 years from 1992-2001 where over 600,000 Iraqi's died directly because of these sanctions?
And after all that, we went to war with them anyway, and have killed hundreds of thousands more!

But how are our sanctions going to help a situation like this?

It's the same thing in Iran. We are entangled in Iran deeply now, and have struck the first blow with these recent sanctions. How long can this last before we are in a full fledged war with Iran, while we continue to build Iraq and fight the taliban in Afganistan?

"Additionally, this legislation calls for yet more and stricter sanctions on Iran, including a demand that other countries also impose sanctions on Iran. As we know, sanctions are unmistakably a move toward war, particularly when, as in this legislation, a demand is made that the other nations of the world similarly isolate and blockade the country. Those who wish for a regime change in Iran should especially reject sanctions – just look at how our Cuba policy has allowed Fidel Castro to maintain his hold on power for decades. Sanctions do not hurt political leaders, as we know most recently from our sanctions against Iraq, but rather sow misery among the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society. Dictators do not go hungry when sanctions are imposed." - Ron Paul

literatim = correct
SeanEdwards = wrong

 

[SeanEdwards]

People just blindly accept that sanctions are great, because "it's better than going to war".

But the problem is, sanctions don't work, and like Ron Paul said, they are an act of war!

Absolute statements are usually unwise, because very little in politics or human behavior boil down to such simple terms.

Some sanctions have served their purpose. A recent example would be the case of Libya, where sanctions helped to change the Libyan government's position on nuclear weapon development. And Paul was wrong about them being an act of war. Perhaps he misspoke, or exaggerated, or whatever. He disagreed with certain sanctions, which is fine, but it is factually inaccurate to elevate trade sanctions to the same level as bombing.

It's the same thing in Iran. We are entangled in Iran deeply now, and have struck the first blow with these recent sanctions. How long can this last before we are in a full fledged war with Iran, while we continue to build Iraq and fight the taliban in Afganistan?

Slippery slope fallacy.

"Additionally, this legislation calls for yet more and stricter sanctions on Iran, including a demand that other countries also impose sanctions on Iran. As we know, sanctions are unmistakably a move toward war,

60 years of sanctions against Cuba led inevitably to war?

particularly when, as in this legislation, a demand is made that the other nations of the world similarly isolate and blockade the country. Those who wish for a regime change in Iran should especially reject sanctions – just look at how our Cuba policy has allowed Fidel Castro to maintain his hold on power for decades. Sanctions do not hurt political leaders, as we know most recently from our sanctions against Iraq, but rather sow misery among the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society. Dictators do not go hungry when sanctions are imposed." - Ron Paul

literatim = correct
SeanEdwards = wrong

Ron Paul is just a man, and can be as fallible as anyone. I'd agree with him that sanctions can be misguided or foolish at times. But this absolutist stance by posters on this forum that any and all sanctions = war, is frankly stupid.

 

[literatim]

You're wrong. Not doing business with someone is a choice. I don't watch fox news. That's not an act of war. That's my personal sanction against their shit. If our elected representatives choose the same policy with a foreign nation it's the same thing. And it's entirely constitutional. Some sanctions might be misguided or foolish, but they clearly are a tool of diplomacy.

A choice of an individual. The government is telling the entire American populace that they cannot buy and sell to a specific country. It is coercion no matter how you try to argue it. You are telling another nation that they must act a certain way or not allow the American population to trade with them. That is intimidation to get your way. When you sanction a country, it isn't the government that suffers--it is the people! They suffer and die of starvation.

War is constitutional also.

I hope that particular comment was hyperbole, because it was clearly not factual. And anyone can research it. Trade barriers have never been an act of war. Blockades are an act of war, but that is a very different thing.

Are you even a Ron Paul supporter? Have you even read any of his writings on this topic?

When we cut off trade of steel to Japan before World War 2, it forced Japan's hand to attack us. It led us into one of the bloodiest wars in history. I think you better read Ron Paul's A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship.

 

[angelatc]

I do not believe the following:

If America had never interfered in the affairs of any Arab country the Islamic extremists would still be trying to destroy us.
They hate us because we're not Islamic.
They hate us because we're a Democracy.
They hate us because we allow dissent.
They hate us because we treat our women like human beings and equals.
They hate us because we let young girls go to school.
They hate us because we believe in progress.
They hate us because we celebrate music, art, dance, literature, and sexuality.
They hate us because we believe in equality of races.
They hate us desperately because we actually allow Jews to survive and thrive in our society.
They hate us because we don't murder gays in the street for the 'crime' of being gay.

And maybe they do hate us. So what? They hate each other too, when it all comes down to it. And there are plenty of us who hate "them." IT certainly doesn't mean we have to go kill them all.

 

[SeanEdwards]

A choice of an individual. The government is telling the entire American populace that they cannot buy and sell to a specific country.

Our representative government. Our government tells the entire American population that they can't be cannibals also. That's a terrible infringment on the rights of people who want to eat manflesh, isn't it?

Are you going to argue that whether or not to be a cannibal is a choice for an individual too?

It is coercion no matter how you try to argue it.

All laws are coercive. Our society is structured around a political process whereby such coercive efforts to regulate the actions of the members of the society are negotiated. If you don't like the laws, then change the government.

Regulating trade with foreign nations is EXPLICITLY authorized to the Congress in the Constitution. Maybe instead of whining for anarchy, you should be working on a Constitutional amendment to remove that authority from the government, since it appears that you think they should not have that authority.

You are telling another nation that they must act a certain way or not allow the American population to trade with them. That is intimidation to get your way.

So what? When I refuse to watch Fox news because they suck, I'm trying to, in my small way, intimidate them to get my way. Big freakin deal.

When you sanction a country, it isn't the government that suffers--it is the people! They suffer and die of starvation.

That is irrelevant to this discussion. Some sanctions may be stupid. That doesn't mean the idea of sanctions is always stupid. Your absolutism is stupid. We have sanctions against selling our top secret military technology to our enemies too. Is that more unjust coercion? Is it an individual choice of defense companies if they want to turn around and sell nuclear missiles to our enemies? It's their business after all, right? Isn't that how it works in your quaint little black and white anarchy world?

War is constitutional also.

Damn right it is, and that's the ultimate coercion.

Are you even a Ron Paul supporter? Have you even read any of his writings on this topic?

Ah yes, the obligatory attack on the man. You've run out of arguments to support your beliefs so now you attack me as a person and question my reasons for being here.

When we cut off trade of steel to Japan before World War 2, it forced Japan's hand to attack us.

Can you write crap like that and keep a straight face? We FORCED them to attack us? They didn't have any choice in the matter, huh?

 

[familydog]

That's called diplomacy. The same thing Ron Paul supports.

What is "economic" pressure? Why not just say diplomacy?