PDA

View Full Version : LP VP's opinions of Ron Paul (Listen Up)




davagd0284
06-01-2008, 10:18 AM
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
06-01-2008, 10:29 AM
Why they chose Root is beyond me. It was hard enough for me to vote for Barr but Root just about ruins it.

goldstandard
06-01-2008, 10:38 AM
His view on 'the war on terror' is total BS.

davagd0284
06-01-2008, 01:09 PM
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
06-01-2008, 03:29 PM
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
06-01-2008, 03:41 PM
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
06-01-2008, 03:46 PM
They have been neoconned.

literatim
06-01-2008, 03:49 PM
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
06-01-2008, 03:51 PM
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
06-01-2008, 03:56 PM
Barr's 'solution' for Iran:

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

literatim
06-01-2008, 03:58 PM
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
06-01-2008, 04:02 PM
"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
06-01-2008, 04:06 PM
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
06-01-2008, 04:13 PM
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
06-01-2008, 05:15 PM
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
06-01-2008, 05:29 PM
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
06-01-2008, 05:56 PM
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 (http://www.amazon.com/Foreign-Policy-Freedom-Commerce-Friendship/dp/0912453001).

angelatc
06-01-2008, 06:05 PM
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
06-01-2008, 06:33 PM
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? :rolleyes:

familydog
06-01-2008, 06:41 PM
That's called diplomacy. The same thing Ron Paul supports.

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

SeanEdwards
06-01-2008, 06:44 PM
What is "economic" pressure? Why not just say diplomacy?

Diplomacy is all the tools of power of the state, short of physical violence. And war is diplomacy by other means.

familydog
06-01-2008, 06:52 PM
Diplomacy is all the tools of power of the state, short of physical violence. And war is diplomacy by other means.

Okay...but what about Barr's position?

SeanEdwards
06-01-2008, 07:06 PM
Okay...but what about Barr's position?

Economic pressure is a potential diplomatic tool. I'm not speaking on behalf of Barr, but I'm guessing he explicitly spelled out that policy position just to be clear. It's apparent just from reading this thread that there are widely divergent understanding of what diplomacy means. Some people apparently think diplomacy consists only of strongly worded letters. These people are misinformed. I imagine Barr was just trying to be clear that his concept of diplomacy included something more than speeches.

familydog
06-01-2008, 07:23 PM
Economic pressure is a potential diplomatic tool. I'm not speaking on behalf of Barr, but I'm guessing he explicitly spelled out that policy position just to be clear. It's apparent just from reading this thread that there are widely divergent understanding of what diplomacy means. Some people apparently think diplomacy consists only of strongly worded letters. These people are misinformed. I imagine Barr was just trying to be clear that his concept of diplomacy included something more than speeches.

Okay...but what is more than speeches? In that blog, he says that Washington should not leave Iran alone. That's explicit. Moving on, he then used the words strengthening economic pressure. He also used the words strengthening political pressure implying that political pressure and economic pressure are different. So, can you give me examples of what can constitute political pressure and what constitututes economic pressure? It seems to me, strengthening economic pressure means strenghtening economic sanctions? What else could it mean? Iran is not the only country he supports sanctions against. So, is it fair to consider him an interventionist?

N13
06-01-2008, 07:46 PM
Good Read.

SeanEdwards
06-01-2008, 07:51 PM
Okay...but what is more than speeches? In that blog, he says that Washington should not leave Iran alone. That's explicit. Moving on, he then used the words strengthening economic pressure. He also used the words strengthening political pressure implying that political pressure and economic pressure are different. So, can you give me examples of what can constitute political pressure and what constitututes economic pressure? It seems to me, strengthening economic pressure means strenghtening economic sanctions? What else could it mean? Iran is not the only country he supports sanctions against. So, is it fair to consider him an interventionist?

Economic pressure could include barriers to trade, freezing international assets, etc.

Political pressure could include such things as rhetoric, barring travel of individuals, attempting to convince other international entities to shun the state, barring the targeted state from participation in international organizations.

I think that "strengthening economic pressure" sounds like economic sanctions to me. If you think such acts are "interventionism" then I suppose you could call him an interventionist. Personally, I think there is a distinction between non-violent intervention and violent intervention that is not adequately communicated by simply calling someone an interventionist. I don't think a trade barrier is equivalent to facilitating a coup d'etat, so I don't think both acts should be described with the same word.

BKom
06-01-2008, 07:55 PM
What this discussion ignores is the high correlation between trade embargoes and protectionism, and war.

Historically, the two go hand in hand so often that it's hard not to equate them to some degree.

We need to face it. The libertarian candidate was Ron Paul. The candidates of the Libertarian Party this year are neither libertarian nor are they very appealing. Barr is a fraud. He was a fraud as a conservative, although closer to that mark. And Root is at tool, and not a sharp one. Sad that my former party has so degenerated.

familydog
06-01-2008, 08:06 PM
Economic pressure could include barriers to trade, freezing international assets, etc.

Political pressure could include such things as rhetoric, barring travel of individuals, attempting to convince other international entities to shun the state, barring the targeted state from participation in international organizations.

I think that "strengthening economic pressure" sounds like economic sanctions to me. If you think such acts are "interventionism" then I suppose you could call him an interventionist. Personally, I think there is a distinction between non-violent intervention and violent intervention that is not adequately communicated by simply calling someone an interventionist. I don't think a trade barrier is equivalent to facilitating a coup d'etat, so I don't think both acts should be described with the same word.

Ahh ok. Makes sense. Thanks for the examples.

I'd argue that indeed sanctions are a form of interventionism. All the controversy surrounding Iran is basically about them acquiring nuclear technology. That is something that only affects the internal affairs of their nation. Now, one could argue that they could develope nuclear weapons, and then use them. However, that is pure speculation and is a case of pre-emption. If his policy is pre-emption, count me out. Also, take a look at Barr's record. While in Congress, he supported whole-heartidly trade sanctions against Cuba. Why? I'm assuming it was for the same reason that everyone else who supported those sanctions gave. We don't like Castro and he is a communist. That is an internal affair of Cuba and had nothing to do with us. But is saying we don't want to trade with Cuba messing with their internal affairs? While on the surface, certainly it appears that it has nothing to do with their internal affairs. However, the people inside Cuba are being punished by the United States government (the same is said for the Iranian people). Does our government have to affect their government in order for it to be intervention? I'd say no. Ron Paul argues that the US government spending millions of dollars in propaganda in Iran is intervention. That directly affects the people, not the government.

At the same time, one could argue that economic sanctions can be violent. Didn't sanctions on Iraq in the 90s result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children?

yaz
06-02-2008, 12:30 AM
Ahh ok. Makes sense. Thanks for the examples.

I'd argue that indeed sanctions are a form of interventionism. All the controversy surrounding Iran is basically about them acquiring nuclear technology. That is something that only affects the internal affairs of their nation. Now, one could argue that they could develope nuclear weapons, and then use them. However, that is pure speculation and is a case of pre-emption. If his policy is pre-emption, count me out. Also, take a look at Barr's record. While in Congress, he supported whole-heartidly trade sanctions against Cuba. Why? I'm assuming it was for the same reason that everyone else who supported those sanctions gave. We don't like Castro and he is a communist. That is an internal affair of Cuba and had nothing to do with us. But is saying we don't want to trade with Cuba messing with their internal affairs? While on the surface, certainly it appears that it has nothing to do with their internal affairs. However, the people inside Cuba are being punished by the United States government (the same is said for the Iranian people). Does our government have to affect their government in order for it to be intervention? I'd say no. Ron Paul argues that the US government spending millions of dollars in propaganda in Iran is intervention. That directly affects the people, not the government.

At the same time, one could argue that economic sanctions can be violent. Didn't sanctions on Iraq in the 90s result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children?

Sanctions are a part of interventionism. Those people are not "evil" like you said, but have motives. There are people that are evil but those few people are taken care of through their own police actions. Free trade is the best way to spread democracy. Sanctions are useless. As I said earlier, we don't hurt governments through sanctions only innocent people in the country. I hate arguing with interventionists. I can point out some good books for you to read so I won't have to type books worth of information, Sean.