PDA

View Full Version : Minor difference between Lawson and Paul?




tggroo7
10-19-2008, 09:27 PM
First off, let me say that I am not trying to divide people and I do not expect or even want to negatively portray BJ Lawson. Like the title says, I am just asking about a possible MINOR difference between Lawson and Paul. I, and probably many of you, have thought of Lawson as pretty much identical to Dr. Paul.

My question is how Ron Paul feels about defending an innocent, attacked nation (one that was involved with NO provocation, like not Georgia). I thought from what I've heard from Dr. Paul that he is against getting into wars because of alliances or defending other nations. Lawson, however said he would go to Poland's aid in defense of Nazi Germany's invasion. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure Dr. Paul would not do that.

Any thoughts? Am I wrong? Again, I don't want to get anyone upset over this, I was just surprised when I saw him state this and I actually agree with Lawson over Paul (if in fact Paul would differ on this issue).

tremendoustie
10-19-2008, 09:47 PM
First off, let me say that I am not trying to divide people and I do not expect or even want to negatively portray BJ Lawson. Like the title says, I am just asking about a possible MINOR difference between Lawson and Paul. I, and probably many of you, have thought of Lawson as pretty much identical to Dr. Paul.

My question is how Ron Paul feels about defending an innocent, attacked nation (one that was involved with NO provocation, like not Georgia). I thought from what I've heard from Dr. Paul that he is against getting into wars because of alliances or defending other nations. Lawson, however said he would go to Poland's aid in defense of Nazi Germany's invasion. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure Dr. Paul would not do that.

Any thoughts? Am I wrong? Again, I don't want to get anyone upset over this, I was just surprised when I saw him state this and I actually agree with Lawson over Paul (if in fact Paul would differ on this issue).


I certainly hope no one would get upset about discussing differences between candidates ... Horrors! lol.

I know Dr. Paul believes WW2 was just, because we were attacked. It's a good question, though, whether the invasion of Poland was enough. To tell you the truth, I'm undecided on this. It seems foolish to be willing to wait until an aggressive country has potentially taken over the entire rest of the world to act. However, I also sympathize with the argument that the US military is for the protection of the US, and if Americans want to participate in "moral" wars, to protect innocents, they should be done by volunteers.

nate895
10-19-2008, 09:52 PM
I certainly hope no one would get upset about discussing differences between candidates ... Horrors! lol.

I know Dr. Paul believes WW2 was just, because we were attacked. It's a good question, though, whether the invasion of Poland was enough. To tell you the truth, I'm undecided on this. It seems foolish to be willing to wait until an aggressive country has potentially taken over the entire rest of the world to act. However, I also sympathize with the argument that the US military is for the protection of the US, and if Americans want to participate in "moral" wars, to protect innocents, they should be done by volunteers.

You could simply go by the Monroe Doctrine and only interfere when another country enters this hemisphere, that would be my argument.

beerista
10-19-2008, 10:05 PM
Where did you hear/read Lawson say this? I don't know that, if correct, I'd call this exactly a minor difference; although it is one I wouldn't get overly fussed about. Philanthropic intervention vs no intervention is a significant departure. Hey, I'm not "identical" to Dr. Paul either, so I'm not going to get upset over a few differences between him and Lawson. I'd be happy if he holds to the Four Points that all the third party candidates pledged to.

By the way, I've always thought Dr. Paul's answer on WWII was just a way to duck the question (which I approve of doing, when the question is a trap) since everybody seems to think that WWII is "the good war". Since Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us, it's easy enough to deflect it rather than get everyone's knees jerking.

tggroo7
10-19-2008, 10:10 PM
Here is where he says it: http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/10/17/price-v-lawson-the-unc-debate/#comment-8023


# BJ Lawson Says:
October 18th, 2008 at 10:39 pm

Kenneth - Thanks for your questions, and for asking. I’m skeptical and cynical enough that I appreciate the need for parsing words.

I’ve put some additional work into documenting the assertion that David Price “consistently votes for war” here:

http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/lawson-vs-price/prices-war-record/

The bottom line is that he has voted to initiate and continue hostilities under Democratic administrations, but has not voted to initiate hostilities under Republican administrations. Thus, he appears to be motivated by party politics as opposed to principle.

We’re constantly at war, however, so it’s obvious these games of party politics are used as a tool to keep the electorate divided while enough swing votes are always present to ensure that wars are funded, although never constitutionally declared.

I reject the “Bush doctrine.” Iraq is not, and was not, a war of self-defense, and is not justified either in self defense or defense of innocents. The question of “defense of innocents” in my opinion is best exemplified by Hitler steamrolling unprovoked into Poland — that’s a scenario where defense of innocents could be invoked. Internal struggles in other countries are not, in most cases, defense of innocents.

For example, consider Somalia — Somalia has a human rights tragedy with African Muslims at war with Arab Muslims. Which side should we choose?

The answer is neither — we cannot, and must not, take sides with military intervention in other nations’ civil wars. For additional perspective, please see here:

http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/11/18/guidelines-for-the-use-of-deadly-force/

I am running as a Republican because the Republican party has desperately lost its way and needs to be rebuilt from the inside out. Please understand, I’ve always been a Republican — it’s just that the party establishment no longer reflects my values, nor the values of most Americans, with respect to good government that serves the American individual instead of corporate interests.

Since the Republican party has moved in a dangerous direction, it needs to be reformed. If I abandon the party, then it will continue to act against my interests, and the interests of the American people.

Would you prefer to have a party that acts against our nation’s interests, or would you prefer to support principled candidates who wish to reform a sick party so we can again have a productive dialog that is truly transpartisan and focused on American solutions for American problems?

Finally, while the Democratic party may appear more benign than the Republican party, in reality its leadership is not. The bailout is a perfect example of how BOTH parties need a housecleaning at the top. Pelosi is basically a surrogate for the current administration, and our incumbent takes his orders from Pelosi instead of the people and our United States Constitution.

We need principled leaders working for change in both parties, and I look forward to working with such leaders to advance a constitutional government that serves all Americans equally regardless of party affiliation (or lack thereof).

I guess I cannot verify with 100% certainty that this came from Lawson, but I really doubt someone would just make that long response and say it is coming from Lawson.

Kludge
10-19-2008, 10:15 PM
I probed into this earlier...

Should the U.S. intervene in genocides overseas? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=161755)

beerista
10-19-2008, 10:35 PM
I guess I cannot verify with 100% certainty that this came from Lawson, but I really doubt someone would just make that long response and say it is coming from Lawson.
I wasn't questioning that he said something. I only wanted to see it for myself to see if I agree that it's what he said/meant.


The question of “defense of innocents” in my opinion is best exemplified by Hitler steamrolling unprovoked into Poland — that’s a scenario where defense of innocents could be invoked. Internal struggles in other countries are not, in most cases, defense of innocents.
This seems to be the relevant passage. If you read it carefully, he is saying that the Poland situation is an example of a situation in which the argument for "defense of innocents" might be invoked. He doesn't explicitly state that he would have gone to war based on that argument, though. In fact, he spends the rest of the article describing how hard it is to determine just when "defense of innocents" is really defense of innocents rather than just sticking our noses into others' conflicts haphazardly. He makes the same point in the linked blog entry. I think it is a very good point, and one which Dr. Paul also makes. He doesn't close the door on intervention in situations like this, but at least he seems deliberative about it. I don't regret sending him (a very small amount of) money based on this.

Your question wasn't about my personal beliefs, but I'd take a more hard-line anti-intervention (even for good reasons) approach. Our military is for defense only. If I feel passionately that someone needs defending, I should be free to pick up a gun and go defend them without mandating that you risk life and limb and possibly endanger your soul to follow me in what may turn out to be folly if I haven't used good judgment in determining just who the "innocents" are.

NightOwl
10-19-2008, 11:53 PM
Lawson, however said he would go to Poland's aid in defense of Nazi Germany's invasion.

What a strange statement. With what army? How on earth could the U.S. have expelled Hitler from Poland? This is exactly the kind of sweeping, moralistic nonsense we hear about Georgia. The British stupidly gave Poland a war guarantee, and then made no effort to make good on it, knowing there was no way, logistically, they could do a thing to save Poland.

I strongly, strongly urge you to read Pat Buchanan's new book Churchill, Hitler, and the "Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. What a worthwhile and impressive read.