Ron Paul’s Rhetoric

[Mister D]

Ron Paul’s foreign-policy views have long kept him exiled from the mainstream of the Republican party, but his rhetoric has also contributed to his pariah status.On Friday’s Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul responded to a question about Michele Bachmann by saying, “She doesn’t like Muslims. She hates Muslims. She wants to go get ’em.” This wasn’t the first time Paul has accused another conservative of Islamophobia — over the years he has repeatedly maligned Republicans for their views on Muslims, suggesting that bigotry is either a natural motivation or a necessary justification for the U.S.’s interventionist foreign policy.

When asked about conservative opposition to the “Ground Zero mosque,” Paul suggested (http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-08-20/ron-paul-sunshine-patriots-stop-your-demagogy-about-the-nyc-mosque/) Islamophobia was at the root of the controversy: “They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill-conceived preventative wars. . . . This is all about hate and Islamophobia.”

Snip


The United States pursues an aggressive foreign policy to promote its interests and ideals around the globe. This desire, not hatred for Muslims, is why conservatives such as Michele Bachmann advocate a military presence in the Middle East, and take action (in cooperation with Jordan and Saudi Arabia, of all nations) to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
Ron Paul believes that American interests and ideals are best served by keeping our troops at home, and is entitled to that argument. Today’s conservative foreign-policy consensus happens to disagree, and holds American interests are best protected by aggressive policies. Paul is often principled and informed when he takes the other side of this dispute — for instance, in debates, he raises the issue of the “blowback,” i.e. retaliation including terrorist attacks, that results from American invasions and occupations.
Paul’s flaws, however, show through when he is tempted to accuse his opponents of something other than having a different foreign-policy calculus. The substance of Ron Paul’s foreign-policy opinions may cause him to be ostracized from the Republican mainstream anyway, fairly or unfairly, but his disrespect for others’ views ensures that he will remain marginal.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286449/ron-paul-s-rhetoric-patrick-brennan

[totemi]

That still doesn't explain the hysteria over the "Ground Zero Mosque", which actually wasn't a mosque and wasn't at Ground Zero.

[Mister D]

What hysteria?

[Peter1469]

If one believes in a limited federal government governed by the Constitution in domestic policy, it is not a stretch to believe in a limited interventionist policy overseas. Our Founders never intended for the U.S. to police the world. But rather, as Ronald Reagan taught us: to be a Shinning City on the Hill. IOW, an example for others to follow if they wished to prosper. If they don't wish to follow, f'em.

[Mister D]

If one believes in a limited federal government governed by the Constitution in domestic policy, it is not a stretch to believe in a limited interventionist policy overseas. Our Founders never intended for the U.S. to police the world. But rather, as Ronald Reagan taught us: to be a Shinning City on the Hill. IOW, an example for others to follow if they wished to prosper. If they don't wish to follow, f'em.

No argument here. I think Goldberg would agree. The problem, as per Jonah, is Paul's treatment of opposing views.

[Peter1469]

Well that is life. Paul is the only candidate that will offer a course correction from what Obama is doing to the nation.

If it isn't Paul (the only one who has a chance of helping the economy), Obama might as well rule over the crash of the economy and the USD. Let history love him for that.

[Mister D]

Well that is life. Paul is the only candidate that will offer a course correction from what Obama is doing to the nation.

If it isn't Paul (the only one who has a chance of helping the economy), Obama might as well rule over the crash of the economy and the USD. Let history love him for that.

If it won't be Paul that will be at least partly Paul's fault. I can't help but agree with Jonah that Paul's lack of political sense at times helps marginalize him.

[Peter1469]

Well then the Republic is doomed. I suppose that we will start over just fine.

[Mister D]

Mind you, I am by no means against Paul.

[Mister D]

Well then the Republic is doomed. I suppose that we will start over just fine.

Maybe that's a good thing.

[wingrider]

Mind you, I am by no means against Paul.


really???? from what I have read in your posts it would seem that the opposite is true

[wingrider]

Well then the Republic is doomed. I suppose that we will start over just fine.

only if we can completely clean out Washing DC and most of the governments in the states,, We are heading toward a breakdown of bibical proportions in this country if we the people don't take a stand and say " that is enough"

[MMC]

only if we can completely clean out Washing DC and most of the governments in the states,, We are heading toward a breakdown of bibical proportions in this country if we the people don't take a stand and say " that is enough"

Exactly WR these states should be calling back these Politicans for Re-call or re-address. Party leaders and the World of media should all be called, informed, 24/7, people complaining that they are calling back their pols and getting no play.

These guys will take their own constitueients to court to hold their jobs rather than serve their people. All of them. Doesn't matter party. Which is why the Press Televison and Radio all need to be inundated with callers all wanting it out there they are being called for Re-address or for re-call.....we taking you out. You have failed to serve your state and it's constituients. Their Interests and speaking for them. Protecting their rights or at least fighting for them.

[Mister D]

really???? from what I have read in your posts it would seem that the opposite is true

What posts? Could you cite them?

[Peter1469]

Yes

[GRUMPY]

If one believes in a limited federal government governed by the Constitution in domestic policy, it is not a stretch to believe in a limited interventionist policy overseas. Our Founders never intended for the U.S. to police the world. But rather, as Ronald Reagan taught us: to be a Shinning City on the Hill. IOW, an example for others to follow if they wished to prosper. If they don't wish to follow, f'em.

liked ronnie a lot but he took the wrong lesson out of lebanon....should have stamped them and all supporting them into the ground, that would mean no iran to worry about today....

[GRUMPY]

Well that is life. Paul is the only candidate that will offer a course correction from what Obama is doing to the nation.

If it isn't Paul (the only one who has a chance of helping the economy), Obama might as well rule over the crash of the economy and the USD. Let history love him for that.

this is incorrect....all offer a change of course, only paul's is a 180....it is his world view, so what if the mullahs have nukes lets just play ball, blame america first, bush and the boys were gleeful, bachmann hates muslims, stab the jews in the back, green cards for illegals and take/profit from earmarks while damning them that loses me....i find paul to be just as much as a washington insider as any of them.....

[Peter1469]

liked ronnie a lot but he took the wrong lesson out of lebanon....should have stamped them and all supporting them into the ground, that would mean no iran to worry about today....
Problem is that there are too many of them to stamp out in any manner acceptable to reasonable people.

We should have shifted off oil for alcohol fuels starting in the 1980s and by now the Middle East would be basking in the 7th century crap hole that they wish for.

[Peter1469]

this is incorrect....all offer a change of course, only paul's is a 180....it is his world view, so what if the mullahs have nukes lets just play ball, blame america first, bush and the boys were gleeful, bachmann hates muslims, stab the jews in the back, green cards for illegals and take/profit from earmarks while damning them that loses me....i find paul to be just as much as a washington insider as any of them.....

Well we will have to agree to disagree. Any other candidate than Paul will result in a currency collapse. If you think that Paul will as well, then we will have a currency collapse regardless. In such a case then a vote for Obama is prudent- forever tar the Dems with the historical record of crashing the USD. They will never recover.

[littlelionman]

Reagan was a great president but he would have lost the cold war if he nuked Lebanon. It wasn't an option.

[MMC]

Lebanon.....hmmmm I will leave that one alone. I wouldnt want to be accused of picking on the French again. :wink: :laugh:

[Conley]

:laugh:

[MMC]

"What", there is somebody actually still here today. Good to see ya CL. My one buddy was stationed over there. Albeit he was on a ship at the time and he was a Hard Corp. After Lebanon he came home and was a Recruiter out of Chicago for a few years. Spent 12 years in and then they forced him out.

[Conley]

Hey brutha! Never know if you're coming and going when you sign off :grin: I am in and out this evening, hope you are having a good one.

[MMC]

Hey brutha! Never know if you're coming and going when you sign off :grin: I am in and out this evening, hope you are having a good one.

Yeah.....sorry bout that. Figured what did it matter anymore especially when looking at threads and I would see that I would post up 3 or 4 times in just that one thread until someone finally drops a post into a thread. Just like with the other day I had left ran out took care of some buisness then got back on here. Only to watch our Libs and New people out of all of them post one thing. After 45 minutes of it I left again. Which I had punched out that 45 minutes ago. Figured why punch out. No one was really here anyways.

[Peter1469]

Reagan was a great president but he would have lost the cold war if he nuked Lebanon. It wasn't an option.

It would have been beyond insane to nuke a little "nothing" country during the Cold War, when any launch could have triggered a nuclear holocaust.

[Conley]

Also tactically it seems it would be difficult to confine the effects of a nuclear attack inside such small borders. Fallout could end up over Israel. Of course those would be relatively minor issues if it did start WW3 as Peter said!

[Mister D]

Some argue that it was seriously considered in the 1950s Indochina War.

[Conley]

Some argue that it was seriously considered in the 1950s Indochina War.

Interesting, I'll have to look that up.

[Mister D]

Interesting, I'll have to look that up.

Ike was urged by some to drop bomb on the Vietminh siege lines around Dien Bien Phu

[Conley]

That was seriously considered? Seems unlikely with the benefit of hindsight...

[Mister D]

That was seriously considered? Seems unlikely with the benefit of hindsight...

I'm not all that familiar with it but I'd imagine it was dropped because it was impractical.

[GRUMPY]

lebanon did not require nukes....clearly we could have decimated what we now call hezbollah and their syrian/iranian puppet masters as well absent the use of nuclear weapons....now are we capable of taking out any and all iranian response today absent the use of tactical nuke this is the question....i say do what you have to do.....if we have to move on their nuclear capacity then no half steps will be satisfactory....do them completely....

[Peter1469]

Ike was urged by some to drop bomb on the Vietminh siege lines around Dien Bien Phu

Didn't MacArthur's insistence on using nukes in Korea part of the reason Truman finally fired him?

[Mister D]

Didn't MacArthur's insistence on using nukes in Korea part of the reason Truman finally fired him?

MacArthur denied that he had ever recommended their use but the Chinese forced him to retreat after he invaded NK so I think the story is at least plausible. I can believe he made a hasty request that they be used to cover his failure. He does seem like an egotistical guy.

[GRUMPY]

Didn't MacArthur's insistence on using nukes in Korea part of the reason Truman finally fired him?

mac recognized that we were in fact at war and who we were at war with.....earlier maybe in another thread it was put forth that nukes were considered in vn....to my knowledge they were not but i believe that damns on the yalu river were considered but thought to likely incur high civilian casualties....no such thing as civilian casualties in war.....

[Mister D]

mac recognized that we were in fact at war and who we were at war with.....earlier maybe in another thread it was put forth that nukes were considered in vn....to my knowledge they were not but i believe that damns on the yalu river were considered but thought to likely incur high civilian casualties....no such thing as civilian casualties in war.....

Not during the period of US involvement in Vietnam but rather French involvement. That was in the early 50s which, of course, coincided with the Korea War. I find the MacArthur story plausible.

[Peter1469]

mac recognized that we were in fact at war and who we were at war with.....earlier maybe in another thread it was put forth that nukes were considered in vn....to my knowledge they were not but i believe that damns on the yalu river were considered but thought to likely incur high civilian casualties....no such thing as civilian casualties in war.....

Here is a paper on point:

http://hnn.us/articles/9245.html

On 9 December MacArthur said that he wanted commander's discretion to use atomic weapons in the Korean theatre. On 24 December he submitted "a list of retardation targets" for which he required 26 atomic bombs. He also wanted four to drop on the "invasion forces" and four more for "critical concentrations of enemy air power."
In interviews published posthumously, MacArthur said he had a plan that would have won the war in 10 days: "I would have dropped 30 or so atomic bombs . . . strung across the neck of Manchuria." Then he would have introduced half a million Chinese Nationalist troops at the Yalu and then "spread behind us -- from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea -- a belt of radioactive cobalt . . . it has an active life of between 60 and 120 years. For at least 60 years there could have been no land invasion of Korea from the North." He was certain that the Russians would have done nothing about this extreme strategy: "My plan was a cinch."

Had he gotten his wish, likely the Soviets would have turned American cities into glass parking lots. Had Mac Author not gotten too close to China's boarder, it is likely they never would have entered the war.

[Mister D]

Thanks for the research, Peter. 26 atomic bombs!?

Yeah, his invasion provoked the Chinese. That was one of the main issues that came between Truman MacArthur.

[Conley]

Wow, that is just wild stuff.

Can you imagine the reaction if we dropped 26 atomic bombs?!

I wonder if we would be considered worse than the Nazis?

[Mister D]

Weird too. He denied having made any request for atomic weapons.

Oh! Speaking of Korea, there is a series of Korean War documentaries on right now on the Military Channel. Fire and Ice it's called. I really don't know much about this conflict.

[Conley]

He denied it? Really...how odd. He must have known it would come out. That's not exactly something you can sweep under the rug. Plus, 26! :laugh:

Cool, let us know if the show is any good.

[Mister D]

It's good. I'm watching it now.

[Mister D]

OK so apparently even Truman had mentioned at a press conference that he would consider the use of atomic bombs in Korea. Wow.

[Peter1469]

It certainly would not have turned out well for us.

[Mister D]

It certainly would not have turned out well for us.

Or any other member of our species I'd imagine. Yikes. I didn't realize just how serious this was at the time. We always here a lot more about Cuba in the early 60s.

[GRUMPY]

Here is a paper on point:

http://hnn.us/articles/9245.html

On 9 December MacArthur said that he wanted commander's discretion to use atomic weapons in the Korean theatre. On 24 December he submitted "a list of retardation targets" for which he required 26 atomic bombs. He also wanted four to drop on the "invasion forces" and four more for "critical concentrations of enemy air power."
In interviews published posthumously, MacArthur said he had a plan that would have won the war in 10 days: "I would have dropped 30 or so atomic bombs . . . strung across the neck of Manchuria." Then he would have introduced half a million Chinese Nationalist troops at the Yalu and then "spread behind us -- from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea -- a belt of radioactive cobalt . . . it has an active life of between 60 and 120 years. For at least 60 years there could have been no land invasion of Korea from the North." He was certain that the Russians would have done nothing about this extreme strategy: "My plan was a cinch."

Had he gotten his wish, likely the Soviets would have turned American cities into glass parking lots. Had Mac Author not gotten too close to China's boarder, it is likely they never would have entered the war.

based upon what.......

[Peter1469]

Which part?

[MMC]

Yeah.....I saw the show before D. Fire and Ice. MacArthur didnt care for Patton to much. Basically due to finding someone who had a bigger ego than him. He thought Patton was a prima donna. The difference was Patton would jump into a tank and Lead his men into battle from the front lines. Always did wonder what would have happened with Patton if he would have not died when he did. I know ya saw that show on Decoded concerning Patton. What did ya think on the tip of Patton and Eisenhower being worrried politically about him?

MacArthur could only dream about having that ability. Considering he always led from the rear! I am not a big fan of his nor did I think he was ever a better Battlefield Commander than Patton.

[Mister D]

Yeah.....I saw the show before D. Fire and Ice. MacArthur didnt care for Patton to much. Basically due to finding someone who had a bigger ego than him. He thought Patton was a prima donna. The difference was Patton would jump into a tank and Lead his men into battle from the front lines. Always did wonder what would have happened with Patton if he would have not died when he did. I know ya saw that show on Decoded concerning Patton. What did ya think on the tip of Patton and Eisenhower being worrried politically about him?

MacArthur could only dream about having that ability. Considering he always led from the rear! I am not a big fan of his nor did I think he was ever a better Battlefield Commander than Patton.

I certainly don't believe he was assassinated by the Soviets but I have no problem believing that his bluster made him enemies. The American military was mediocre at every level in WW2. None of our generals were "great". Ike, however, was a superb manager. Granted, that's more of a political quality than a military one but it came in handy since the Allies were a coalition.

[Mister D]

NRO poll from last week: Take Paul seriously?

78% No
22% Yes

[Conley]

I am not really surprised by those numbers...people don't take him seriously. He's been doing this for so long now people have formed opinions on him and it would take him doing something incredible to change popular opinion.

[Mister D]

I guess I was just surprised by how lopsided it was.

[Peter1469]

The NRO is neocon central. I am surprised that the no vote wasn't closer to 100%.

The neocons aren't going to be able to afford their overseas adventures once the economy collapses.

Ron Paul 2012.

[Mister D]

The NRO is neocon central. I am surprised that the no vote wasn't closer to 100%.

The neocons aren't going to be able to afford their overseas adventures once the economy collapses.

Ron Paul 2012.


That's why I stopped subscribing. I strill visit the site though.

[MMC]

Are they letting Bolton run an Opt Ed thru there? He at least knows something about foreign policy. A little!

[Peter1469]

Bolton is the chief neocon. I love him as the UN Ambassador, and he would be amusing as a senator, but I would never give him the executive power of the Office of the President. He would blow way too many places up.

[Mister D]

He's made too many enemies abroad to be POTUS. :grin:

[Captain Obvious]

Paul was a guy who wasn't a big blip on my political radar.

Recently that blip got a little bigger - for the wrong reason tho.