How many people donated to preemptive war Peter Schiff?

[klamath]

After getting th official story from CFL I found it greatly lacking. The questionare was a dead giveaway on what the answers needed to be. They were very vague and general.
The answers Buck gave weren't even on the list. It does not look good and it was a very weak response from Tate. All in all I will continue not to be a member or donate to CFL and this incident strengthened my resolve.

I do have to state that with such a huge anti war, non intervention out cry from the members here I wonder how Peter Schiffs position of first preemptive strike policy on Iran is getting a pass???? Is an airforce bombing war not considered a War? Is an airstrike on iran going to stop the jihad war against the US or are we going to insite a wider war against us from muslims??? So is it possible to have a limited war in the middle east against a foreign government????

CFL is getting torn to shreds for supporting a candidate that supports the afgan war yet schiff supports a preemptive war on Iran??

I think some people need to do some soul searching.

[FSP-Rebel]

At least you had the decency to not put this in the Schiff sub-forum.

[pacelli]

Schiff lost my support after I saw his infamous "If,..then" video. He didn't get a pass in my view.

[UtahApocalypse]

Schiff lost my support after I saw his infamous "If,..then" video. He didn't get a pass in my view.

Same with me. that is why I will not support him.

[klamath]

At least you had the decency to not put this in the Schiff sub-forum.

Care to answer the question. It is a very valid question that is getting quietly ignored from some in the "never compromise our war principles" people.

[phill4paul]

Not I. My donations are pretty much to Adam and Gunny. They pretty much have the same ideas and goals as me. With funds limited I can only donate so much. Adam best represents me on a national scale. Gunny on a state. Especially because he is from my state.

[klamath]

Same with me. that is why I will not support him.

Schiff's preemptive war stand and proabortion stand is what did him in in my book. I think he would be better than the other guys but can't support him with money of labor.

I aplaud you and pacelli for your stand.

[MelissaWV]

As I said, I have some issues with Schiff. This is one of them, or rather the way he said what he said is one of them. It was inelegant at best.

I don't think we should disband all of the military and never react or act, so I'm not a pacifist by any means. Personally, I'm not pissed about that with the CFL. What I'm upset about is the "false advertising" that they've done, really from the formation of the group. When it was first formed, trust me: people were divided. A lot of people I know and respect, though, loved the idea of having a centralized support structure for the promotion of liberty issues and information along those lines. They donated their hard-earned money. Now I am seeing those same people betrayed.

CFL was selling itself as one thing, and turned out to be another.

Schiff is not, to my knowledge, marketing himself as a Dove. He is a huge improvement, but not a perfect candidate. There are a lot of "borderline" personalities of a similar sort, in my opinion, who are close to being great... but have handled themselves a bit poorly, and have some issues that are big, red-flag question marks.

I think you're using too broad a brush on both fronts.

[klamath]

As I said, I have some issues with Schiff. This is one of them, or rather the way he said what he said is one of them. It was inelegant at best.

I don't think we should disband all of the military and never react or act, so I'm not a pacifist by any means. Personally, I'm not pissed about that with the CFL. What I'm upset about is the "false advertising" that they've done, really from the formation of the group. When it was first formed, trust me: people were divided. A lot of people I know and respect, though, loved the idea of having a centralized support structure for the promotion of liberty issues and information along those lines. They donated their hard-earned money. Now I am seeing those same people betrayed.

CFL was selling itself as one thing, and turned out to be another.

Schiff is not, to my knowledge, marketing himself as a Dove. He is a huge improvement, but not a perfect candidate. There are a lot of "borderline" personalities of a similar sort, in my opinion, who are close to being great... but have handled themselves a bit poorly, and have some issues that are big, red-flag question marks.

I think you're using too broad a brush on both fronts.

But as many have said Non interventionism is the one plank that cannot be compromised in order to stay Principled.

I do not donate to the red cross or any other organization because of the very problems people are seeing with CFL. Even though I have been a member of the GOP for 30 years I have never donated a cent to the party but only candidates.

[Vessol]

Rand Paul also sadly comes off as a bit hawkish.

[MelissaWV]

But as many have said Non interventionism is the one plank that cannot be compromised in order to stay Principled.

I do not donate to the red cross or any other organization because of the very problems people are seeing with CFL. Even though I have been a member of the GOP for 30 years I have never donated a cent to the party but only candidates.


*nods* As I said, I'm not in agreement with this stuff. It's the "pre-emptive" in particular that draws my ire. If you can't come up with a real justification for war, then why is it needed? War isn't in, out, done; it's years and years and lives and billions of dollars.

I try to donate to the smallest units possible. Easier to research, easier to specialize. When you get something like the Red Cross, it's trying to do so much that it winds up doing very little efficiently. Too much money seems to vanish. Instead, I donate to groups that have a track record in the given area, and are already there :)

[dannno]

Schiff is against our foreign empire, he wants to end the existing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is a HUGE difference than what Buck was saying.


Rand Paul also sadly comes off as a bit hawkish.

I don't like to say anything about this, but personally I think in his heart he's more hawkish than Schiff. And that's a shame.

[RCA]

Schiff lost my support after I saw his infamous "If,..then" video. He didn't get a pass in my view.

please post said video along with your comment

[InterestedParticipant]

Soul searching is a very good start. Here's some of what I've had to say in the past for those who can face the mirror....



Why do you say that IP? I've never heard Schiff mention GATT, one way or the other.
That's my point.

He's put the kybosh (sp?) on GATT. He pretends it doesn't exist. Just like good ole Pat Buchanan... not a peep since 1994.

He's running a "Containment Vector" on GATT.... all these economic shills are. Let me see if I can find some of my previous posts on this and I'll link to them in this thread.

Okay, here's a couple of quotes from the Buchanan thread... make sure you watch the video of Goldsmith on Charlie Rose (near bottom of long thread)... you'll be horrified when you see what was discussed in 1994 and how these guys now pretend none of it never happened.


I just don't know how anyone could ever write anything about our current trade deficit with China without mentioning GATT.... its the elephant in the room.... it's like mentioning WWII without mentioning Hitler or the Nazis.

But notice something, something very important, when is the last time you heard a major pundit or politician mention GATT (other than RP)? You never ever hear it. It doesn't matter whether you're listening to Peter Schiff, Max Keiser, Pat Buchanon or anyone else, none of them ever mention GATT.

This is how you know that they all are holding the line there, they are all using the propaganda technique of Containing a Vector. This is a very very powerful indicator that the person you are listening to is serving someone's agenda.


"GATT is the Magna Carta of the Multinationals."

What a great comment, Pat, too bad it was from 1994. What happened to your manhood since then, eh?

So, why would someone come out so strong about this in 1994 and be silent about it now, when it is ripping our economic security to shreds? You'd think he and Schiff and others were just be railing about this.... but not a whisper.

What is going on?

and from a Schiff the shill thread


Schiff the shill omits any discussion of GATT when discussing the reasons why we are in the mess we are in, even saying GATT is irrelevant when questioned about it directly. That's deceit!

From Fear to Promise thread


We've entered an era of constant crisis, some manufactured and some organic, where our existing social, economic and political systems are undergoing massive change.....and this is only the beginning.

One can certainly find evidence of these current circumstances by reviewing various communications. For example, in Sir James Goldsmith's book, "The Trap (http://www.amazon.com/Trap-James-Goldsmith/dp/0786701854)," he foresaw the total destabilization of society and argued against the instruments that would lead to its creation. Goldsmith addressed the Senate in 1994 on the dangers of signing the NAFTA and the GATT treaty and he laid it out in the most eloquent language (the audio is available on the web, but sorry that I do not have a direct link). He told the Senate that they were moving at a headlong gallop into total economic and social destruction.

But Goldsmith also suggested solutions. RP has also provided solutions.

Americans are incredibly prosperous and innovative people. When we stop listening to the media and political culture creators we regain our pride, independence and fortitude. I think we now understand that we are on our own, the political, economic and social elite are working against us (at worst) or simply do not care about us (at best). So, we have come face-to-face with our own destiny.

Will we listen to the social planners and controllers and accept guilt for our current condition, and become demoralized and depressed and enslaved? Or, will we look in the mirror and regain our strength, our American ingenuity, and once again demonstrate our global leadership.

While I am not unrealistic and believe that everyone will be able to step out of our stupor and move forward in a positive manner, I do believe that enough of us will begin to do this. We're on our own again. We've been here before. Our gov't will not assist us. We must assist each other. We must regain our humanity and reach out to our brothers and sisters and do what we've always done, for thousands of years, and help each other as we dig ourselves out of this hole and regain our self respect and pride.

As I contemplate the current situation and what lies ahead, I've become overwhelmed with confidence that a significant portion of the public is now awake and now understands the choices it faces. I'm also confident that this segment will make the "right" choice, a choice that will support and demonstrate our humanity.

For me, the fear is no longer suffocating, as I'm now focused on the promise of a new system that will result in a nation of self-directed individuals. What exiting times.

And a longer more complete response from the Buchanan discussion



How can we end this dependency and begin building factories and creating jobs here, rather than deepening our dependency on a China that seeks to take our place in the sun? The same way Alexander Hamilton did, when we Americans produced almost nothing and were even more dependent on Great Britain than we are on China today.

Let us do unto our trading partners as they have done unto us.
Here is a fantastic example of a "Containment Vector".... where key information critical to the story is withheld in order to create another reality for the audience.

Pat makes no mention of GATT, passed in 1995 by a Dem Congress and a Dem President: Clinton. This is what set the stage for the exodus of America's manufacturing base offshore, but absolutely no mention of this horrendous bill in Pat's article. This is intellectual dishonesty, and there is absolutely no way this was done on accident.

Pat gives his dishonesty away when he says, "Let us do unto our trading partners as they have done unto us"... attempting to deceive the reader into the conclusion that our current economic dynamic is the fault of the Chinese. What I see Pat doing is deceiving his audience so that they will blame an external enemy, and enemy that our own government created.


Sir James Goldsmith testifies against GATT in US Senate

Sir James Goldsmith was a British establishment member who was exposed to the establishment’s long term plans and had the guts and the soul to tell the public the truth, even testifying at the US Senate in attempt to stop the passage of Clinton’s GATT treaty in 1995. This is critical folks. This is when the cabal secured their Globalization plans, and it is still buried today by people like Peter Schiff and other so-called financial guru’s who somehow fail to leave the most critical part of recent economic history out of any discussion.

Folks, this is how they did it. This is how they moved the USA’s economic engine offshore. NAFTA was a minuscule test run. GATT was the grand daddy of them all!

No one tells the full story of how the USA has found itself in this financial peril. Well, the truth of the matter is that all the wealth that we have built through our hard labor has been allowed to freely move offshore. In fact, in some cases the US Taxpayer made guarantees to reduce the risk of industry’s costs of this move and ramp-up operating expenses.

It’s the great heist ever, and to listen to Peter Schiff tell the story of our economic history, it sounds as if fat dumb Americans are trying to live high on the hog while industrious Asians do all the work. Well, the fact of the matter is that the Americans gave the Asians all of our know how, all of our tooling, an established market place, all the financing, and even guaranteed operating expenses. All the Asians had to do was supply cheap labor and their elite would be granted huge profits and the global market place. We’ve been lied to by everyone, even those who pretend to have our backs. And to add insult to injury, they insult us and blame us for this predicament. It’s like we’re the rape victim and the rapist is telling the world that it is our fault for wearing short skirts, being healthy and pretty, and walking down the sidewalk.

It’s an outrage! Please listen to Goldsmith’s Senate testimony. This audio file was recorded by an individual at the time using very poor equipment, so the audio quality, while it has been digitally improved, is still a challenge to hear. But this simply confirms the efforts to squander Goldsmith’s words, as to my knowledge no other recording of his testimony is available (a transcript of the recording has also been created by other interested individuals).

Audio of Goldsmith's Testimony to US Senate
http://www.filefreak.com/files/30222_njnlb/Sir%20James_Goldsmith_US_Senate_Speech_GATT.mp3

Transcript of Testimony
http://www.alanwattsentientsentinel.eu/english/transcripts/Alan_Watt_Blurb_Sir_James_Goldsmith_US_Senate_Spee ch_Oct192007.html


Goldsmith Interview on Charlie Rose (video)
This 1995 Charlie Rose interview of Sir James Goldsmith really expresses the outrage and the concern over where the planet was headed. In this interview, Goldsmith had traveled to the USA to try to convince the US Senate to vote against the GATT treaty, which Clinton signed not long after the interview. Goldsmith was clearly disturbed.

Charlie Rose November 15 1994 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5064665078176641728)


Goldsmith's Book
Sir James Goldsmith in his book called “the Trap” discussed how Globalization would lead to the total destruction of society. Goldsmith disagreed with this approach to create global disarray and chaos, remaking society into a totally new system.

The Book: The Trap
Sir James Goldsmith
http://www.amazon.com/Trap-James-Goldsmith/dp/0786701854

Book review of “The Trap”
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0504/article_480.shtml

Discussion of Goldsmith & The Trap
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16830077/Sir-James-Goldsmith-Argues-That-Free-Trade-and-Modern-Agriculture-Are-Destroying-Society



Sir James Goldsmith quotes

“What is the good of having an economy which grows by 80% if your unemployment – people excluded from active economic life – goes from 420,000 to 5.1 million?”

“You go and you create a corporation in China. And you build a factory in China. And what do you want to sell, mugs? You sell mugs in China. And you conquer part of the Chinese market by competing fair and square in China. That’s life. That’s adding to the activity of China. You’re a corporate citizen over there, you’re working over there.”

“But if you move a factory from the States and take that to China, not so as to conquer the Chinese market but so as to re-import the goods into the States, so as to get cheap labor, what are you doing? What you are doing is you are saying to your employees here, ‘You’re too expensive, folks. You want money. You want protection. You want unions. You want holidays. Forget it! We can employ 47 people over there (for each one of you) who want nothing.’”

“So, don’t confuse 2 issues. One is going out to participate in their growing economies by building there and conquering part of the market. The other is merely killing off employment in your own country, getting rid of your own labor force – transferring it over there and importing it back – purely so as to increase your profit margins.”

“Now, the average company has about 25% of it’s costs in labor costs, including the social costs, the welfare costs around it, 25%. When you move – 25% of volume, that is – you, all of a sudden, can save over 25%, so your profits go leaping up. But you’re destroying – totally destroying – not only the number of people who’ve got jobs but also their salaries.”

“Now, you realize that salaries in the States – earnings, weekly earnings, hourly earnings over the last 20 years – have already dropped about 19% in real dollars. It’s already been a massive decline and that is why the so called recovery – which is a recovery of economic indexes – hasn’t got the feel good factor because people’s salaries have gone down. They’re gonna go down much more. It’s only beginning and the reason is very straightforward.”

“When you manufacture something, anything – this table – you have a value added. The value added is when you take the raw materials and you manufacture a product. Value you add is known as value added. And that is shared between capital and labor. And the whole division – the sharing of that – has been the subject of massive debates for generations. How much should go to capital? How much should go to labor? You’ve had strikes, you’ve had lockouts, you’ve had political debates.”

“All of a sudden, by creating a global marketplace for labor, by creating circumstances where people are making the same product with the same technology for the same capital and the only variant is cost of labor, you are shattering that – shattering the way you share the value added and that means that you are destroying the basis on which we’ve been able to create an equilibrium and have a stable society.”

“I am entirely for free enterprise. I am for free markets. I’m not for the destruction of one’s society.”

“The economy is there to serve the fundamental needs of society, which are prosperity, which are stability, and which are contentment. That is the basis of my thinking. And what I’m saying at this stage is that if, purely for an economic doctrine, you have a situation whereby the economy grows but you create poverty, unemployment, and you destabilize the society, you’re in trouble.”

“Look what’s happened in the last 50 years. You see, people are not willing to look at fundamentals. When I was a boy we were taught that irreversibly we were moving towards progress. That material wealth, material prosperity would solve our problems, would improve our way of life, and improve our civilization. We were taught that. And we achieved the creation of material prosperity in a way which we would never have dreamt of. We made the economy grow 400%. Incredible! And what have we done? We destabilized our society. We’ve increased unemployment massively. We’ve totally destabilized our cities. We’ve uprooted our countryside. We’ve increased crime. Every single viable criteria for a stable society has become negative. Therefore, something must be wrong. And what has become wrong is that instead of the economy being there to serve us, we are there adoring, serving economic indexes.”

“The facts are that people who benefit are big major corporations. There is a divorce between the interests of major corporations and of society. When one used to say and believe – and probably rightly – what is good for General Motors is good for the United States. That is no longer true. Today the transnational corporations have annual sales of $4.8trillion. They account for 1/3 of all – the top alone account for 1/3 of – direct investment. Now how do they operate? They’re no longer linked to the United States, the American ones, or to France or to Britain. They operate by farming out their production to whatever company produces the cheapest labor, wherever they can get the biggest return on capital, and pay the lowest part to labor.”

“Firstly, it started with the textile industries, and the shoes, and those industries were decimated. We lost millions of employment, of people employed. Secondly, it was followed by the high tech industries. And as I say in the last few months we’ve had those. Thirdly, the service industries – these are facts – the service industries, they’ve been moving offshore. There are satellites up there. If you take Swiss Air. Swiss Air has moved part of its back office into Bombay. Why? Because they can communicate through the satellites and reduce their costs by 95%.”

The idea is to create what is known today as efficient agriculture and to impose it worldwide. Let me just give you one [impact] of GATT on the third world. The idea of GATT is that the efficiency of agriculture throughout the world should …produce the most amount of food for the least cost. But what does that really mean? …What is cost? When you produce the intensified agriculture and you reduce the number of people on the land, what happens to those people?…They are chased into the towns. They lose their jobs on the land. If they go into the towns, there are no jobs, there is no infrastructure. The social costs of those people, the financial costs of the infrastructure has to be added to the cost of producing food.

On top of that, you are breaking families, you are uprooting them, you are throwing them into the slums. Do you realize that in Brazil, the favelas (slums) did not exist before the Green Revolution of intensifying agriculture.

In the world today there are 3.1 billion people still living in rural communities. If GATT succeeds and we are able to impose modern methods of agriculture worldwide, so as to bring them to the level of Canada or Australia, what will happen? 2.1 billion people will be uprooted from the land and chased into the towns throughout the world. It is the single greatest disaster [in our history] greater than any war.

We have to change priorities. Let’s take agriculture. Instead of just trying to produce the maximum amount for the cheapest direct costs, let us try to take into account the other costs. Our purpose should not be just the one dimensional cost of food. We want the right amount of food, for the right quality for health and the right quality for the environment and employing enough people so as to maintain social stability in the rural areas.

If not, and we chase 2.1 billion people into the slums of the towns, we will create on a scale unheard of mass migration – what we saw in Rwanda with 2 million people will be nothing — so as to satisfy an economic doctrine. … We would be creating 2 billion refuges. We would be creating mass waves of migration which none of us could control. We would be destroying the towns which are already largely destroyed. Look at Mexico, Rio, look at our own towns.
And we are doing this for economic dogma?…What is this nonsense? Everything is based in our modern society on improving an economic index…The result is that we are destroying the stability of our societies, because we are worshiping the wrong god… Economic index.
The economy, like everything else, is a tool which should be submitted to, should be subject to, the true and fundamental requirements of society.

This is the establishment against the rest of society… I am for business, so long as it does not devour society…[But] we have a conflict of interest. Big business loves having access to an unlimited supply of give away labor.

In every developing nation, you have the same problem. You have a handful of people who control everything, the oligarchs. The poor in the rich countries are going to be subsidizing the rich in the poor countries.

You cannot enrich a country by destroying the health of its population. The health of a society cannot be measured by corporate profitability.

We have allowed the instruments that are supposed to serve us to become our masters.




Ok. Just for shits and giggles, are you saying Peter Schiff is knowingly controlled opposition, or is he just another pawn for some purpose he is unaware of, only to be discarded later?
Oh, he knows exactly what he is doing and is promoted in media specifically to perpetrate the deception, otherwise he would be attacked. In other words, he is authorized. While there are plenty of authorized dupes out there, people who are left along because they are too stupid to figure out they are working for the system, there are others who are so crafty that the only explanation can be fore-knowledge of their activity.

I don't know yet if he'll be discarded, but when you play ball with the Devil you should be prepared to get screwed in the end, no matter how sweet the deal appears to be. So, anything is possible with these front-people... they are expendable.

This subject regarding Peter has been discussed before, in at least two other threads. If you want to have that discussion then lets find those other threads and continue it there, as it is not necessarily on topic for this thread.





"The Fed" is a cartel of private banks. You can't just shut it down. Congress has to revoke the act the protects its monopoly... then all banks can compete with their rates.
The words you quote is well stated, and conveys more information than the simple "end the fed", which to the average joe, may just sound like ending the government.
Baloney. The FED is the most important part of the scheme against our Republic. Whatever specific words one chooses to describe the important of ending its rein against the Constitution is mental masturbation. Ending the FED should clearly be on every true libertarians plank, and it should be the first item.

This is not the first time Agent Schiff has leveraged words to deceive in critical areas of importance. Why are you so willing to simply support a person carte blanche like this? I would have thought everyone here would have learned by now that it is the ideas that are of critical importance, and not the person. People deceive.


Peter has stated on numerous occasions that he would support ending the Fed so long as it didn't mean that we simply hand the printing presses over to Nancy Pelosi. As for fractional reserve banking, I don't know if he'd favor specifically outlawing it, but like Ron Paul, he thinks there should be no FDIC to socialize the risk of bad banking.
Andrew Jackson failed to cease fraction reserve banking, which allowed these international bankers to maintain state banks in the Union, operating with incredible rates of profit... ultimately using their strength to pressure Lincoln and manipulate the Union in to Civil War. If we're going to close them down for good, we need to shut-off their production of fiat currency, turn-off their obscene profit-making abilities through fractional reserve banking, and put their agents in jail for the rest of their lives.




Schiff is right at saying why we are in this mess and what politicians should do to get us out of it.
Schiff the shill omits any discussion of GATT when discussing the reasons why we are in the mess we are in, even saying GATT is irrelevant when questioned about it directly. That's deceit!

[MelissaWV]

wow. A whole page of quoting oneself.

That's just... wow.

[jclay2]

Where is this video talking about schiff's position on the military. I tried to find it on youtube with no luck.

[Meatwasp]

I really don't see much difference in Schiff and Buck either. I am always a purist. They have to be like Dr Paul on abortion and war , or no go. I do not compromise. The thousand little deaths of compromise.

[Vessol]

Where is this video talking about schiff's position on the military. I tried to find it on youtube with no luck.

YouTube - **SCHIFF on National Security and More** Woodbury, CT November 19, 2.wmv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73vVEY8zNCE)

[pacelli]

please post said video along with your comment

I avoided posting it because it has caused a shitstorm on the forums every time someone posts it, so I'm only posting it because you asked. I'm not on a campaign to get the forums to turn against Schiff. If you want to support him, by all means, support him.

The question and related comments start at ~2 minutes into it:

YouTube - Peter Schiff Considers Supporting an Attack on Iran (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFu0mCTh5Is)

[low preference guy]

I wholeheartedly support Schiff.

I think there are exceptions for preemtive wars, i.e., if someone is about to drop a nuclear bomb in an American city, it's OK to attack their nuclear facilities first. If you way for them to attack, you can have millions of people dead before you declare the war. I think the Iranians don't have the capacity to guarantee that a nuclear bomb they develop won't be stolen by terrorists. Note that Schiff proposes attacking the nuclear facilities in this case, not the whole country. It will be a military effort that would last a day.

Nevertheless, the "IF" of Peter statement most likely would never happen if Schiff gets his way. The Iranians at this moment don't have nuclear weapons, and since Peter won't have a reason to attack them, he would like to lift the embargo and trade with them. If you study Bastiat, you'll see that countries who trade have great incentives to avoid war. Once we establish a regular and increasing flow of trade with them, they won't even think about developing nuclear weapons.

[klamath]

Schiff is against our foreign empire, he wants to end the existing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is a HUGE difference than what Buck was saying.



I don't like to say anything about this, but personally I think in his heart he's more hawkish than Schiff. And that's a shame.
Sorry but Schiff is FOR starting another war with Iran. You just don't just go in and bomb a country and then say "ok we are done now all hostilities must stop".

The war has been started. once those nitrogen compounds start shreading a foreign governments property the war is on.

Schiff has flat out stated this more than once yet you are trying to say Rand in the bigger war monger? Invading Iran is a lot bigger war than back country Afganistan.

[InterestedParticipant]

Where is this video talking about schiff's position on the military. I tried to find it on youtube with no luck.
Here is the original post (I think) at RPF:


He would just do it differently than Obama or Bush. Do we need anything more to dump this guy?

YouTube - Liberty, Fannie & Freddie, Fed, housing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIIgXKH0_ig)

[SelfTaught]

Schiff is against our foreign empire, he wants to end the existing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is a HUGE difference than what Buck was saying.



I don't like to say anything about this, but personally I think in his heart he's more hawkish than Schiff. And that's a shame.

I agree. I think Rand is probably more of an interventionist than Schiff, in their hearts. I think Schiff probably said that he would attack Iran as a hypothetical just so he wouldn't look like a pussy in front of the Republican town committee members.

[low preference guy]

Sorry but Schiff is FOR starting another war with Iran. You just don't just go in and bomb a country and then say "ok we are done now all hostilities must stop".

The war has been started. once those nitrogen compounds start shreading a foreign governments property the war is on.

Schiff has flat out stated this more than once yet you are trying to say Rand in the bigger war monger? Invading Iran is a lot bigger war than back country Afganistan.

Schiff never talked about invading the country of Iran or bombing the country. He said he would bomb the nuclear facilities if they are on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon.

[Meatwasp]

I said this before and will say this again. If Every country would be allowed to have nuclear bombs no one would use them. Like if every one was allowed to carry guns there would be hardly any crimes. Think I am nuts? Well think about it.

[low preference guy]

I said this before and will say this again. If Every country would be allowed to have nuclear bombs no one would use them. Like if every one was allowed to carry guns there would be hardly any crimes. Think I am nuts? Well think about it.

What you say is true in most cases, but there are some exceptions. The exception is the case where nuclear weapons fall in the hands of people who don't care about being killed. E.g., people who think that they'll go to heaven if they die in a holy war. People with the mentality of a suicide bomber.

[klamath]

I wholeheartedly support Schiff.

I think there are exceptions for preemtive wars, i.e., if someone is about to drop a nuclear bomb in an American city, it's OK to attack their nuclear facilities first. If you way for them to attack, you can have millions of people dead before you declare the war. I think the Iranians don't have the capacity to guarantee that a nuclear bomb they develop won't be stolen by terrorists. Note that Schiff proposes attacking the nuclear facilities in this case, not the whole country. It will be a military effort that would last a day.

Nevertheless, the "IF" of Peter statement most likely would never happen if Schiff gets his way. The Iranians at this moment don't have nuclear weapons, and since Peter won't have a reason to attack them, he would like to lift the embargo and trade with them. If you study Bastiat, you'll see that countries who trade have great incentives to avoid war. Once we establish a regular and increasing flow of trade with them, they won't even think about developing nuclear weapons.


A really really poor aguement that can be applied to people supporting the war in the 'Stans. Pakistan is a whole lot more likely to lose its nuclear weapons to terrorists.

So Iran is just going to take it laying down. They are not going to just lay back and take it. When they pay a terrorist organization 100 million to set off a nuke in NY then what is Schiffs response???

[InterestedParticipant]

I said this before and will say this again. If Every country would be allowed to have nuclear bombs no one would use them. Like if every one was allowed to carry guns there would be hardly any crimes. Think I am nuts? Well think about it.
You are correct. This theory is called MAD ("Mutual Assured Destruction") and it was created at the Rand Corporation.

[low preference guy]

A really really poor aguement that can be applied to people supporting the war in the 'Stans. Pakistan is a whole lot more likely to lose its nuclear weapons to terrorists.

So Iran is just going to take it laying down. They are not going to just lay back and take it. When they pay a terrorist organization 100 million to set off a nuke in NY then what is Schiffs response???

The problem is that Pakistan already have a nuclear weapon. Once they have one it's too late to do anything. We have to stop the Iranian program if and when they are on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon.

[Meatwasp]

So the Japanese had suicide bomber too. In fact every country had them. The word berserk came from people like that (I think)

[klamath]

The problem is that Pakistan already have a nuclear weapon. Once they have one it's too late to do anything. We have to stop the Iranian program if and when they are on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon.

And continue the wars in the middle east.

[low preference guy]

So the Japanese had suicide bomber too. In fact every country had them. The word berserk came from people like that (I think)

Sure, there are places with nuclear bombs that can have suicidal people. But it's better to stop more countries from having nuclear weapons if they are likely to fall in the hands of suicide people. E.g., Iran.

Your argument that if everyone has nuclear weapons nobody will use them is false, because if someone doesn't care about dying and wants to strike an enemy, they'll use the bomb. And some of them think that after dying they'll go to heaven.

[low preference guy]

And continue the wars in the middle east.

No, we don't have to take any action now, because according to our intelligence they are not close to developing one. We can and should pull out of the middle east at this point, which is what Peter supports.

[Meatwasp]

Like Ron Paul says "They are here because we were there bombing them for 10 years." What the heck are we doing over there in the first place? The eco freaks won't let us drill our own oil and If we could we can leave the whole area. Let the devil take the hine most. Ugh

[Daamien]

Schiff may allow for foreign intervention, but he is by no means a neoconservative who would seek to expand American interests abroad. Furthermore, he supports a congressional declaration of war.

[low preference guy]

Like Ron Paul says "They are here because we were there bombing them for 10 years." What the heck are we doing over there in the first place? The eco freaks won't let us drill our own oil and If we could we can leave the whole area. Let the devil take the hine most. Ugh

Peter Schiff would agree with that. We wants the troops form Afghanistan and Iraq to come home, and also wants to drill here.

[klamath]

I avoided posting it because it has caused a shitstorm on the forums every time someone posts it, so I'm only posting it because you asked. I'm not on a campaign to get the forums to turn against Schiff. If you want to support him, by all means, support him.

The question and related comments start at ~2 minutes into it:

YouTube - Peter Schiff Considers Supporting an Attack on Iran (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFu0mCTh5Is)

I myself have reframed from pushing this against Schiff and stay out of the Schiff forums unless some A**hole Schiff supporter starts tearing into RP and I see it come up in the new posts results.
How ever if RP's CFL can be destroyed over supporting a prowar candidate then we better stick to "our principles". I have been choking on this hypocracy long enough.

[klamath]

Schiff may allow for foreign intervention, but he is by no means a neoconservative who would seek to expand American interests abroad. Furthermore, he supports a congressional declaration of war.

Did you ever here him say congress should declare war before bombing Iran?

[low preference guy]

I myself have reframed from pushing this against Schiff and stay out of the Schiff forums unless some A**hole Schiff supporter starts tearing into RP and I see it come up in the new posts results.
How ever if RP's CFL can be destroyed over supporting a prowar candidate then we better stick to "our principles". I have been choking on this hypocracy long enough.

There is a big difference between wanting to continue the current wars (what the neocons want and Peter Schiff opposes), and believe that we should bomb nuclear facilities in the hypothetical situation that our intelligence find that Iran as about to get a bomb.

One position says: Let's continue the wars.
Schiff says: Let's end the wars, but we might bomb nuclear facilities if some conditions are met.

There's a difference. In my opinion, a different between supporting and not supporting a candidate. I would support Schiff, but not a neocon.

[johnrocks]

Getting the public to rethink how we should conduct ourselves in foreign policy will take some time, we won't win every battle(race) that we enter, we won't win by being so rigid or we'll just be forever frustrated while the neo/social cons and liberals share power in D.C.

[dannno]

Sorry but Schiff is FOR starting another war with Iran..

Under hypothetical circumstances he says he is..

[low preference guy]

Also, a war with Iran would probably last a day. We bomb the nuclear facilities and we are done.

[WaltM]

why is war a problem as long as you're a fiscal responsible person who hates fiat currency and loves gold?

[klamath]

There is a big difference between wanting to continue the current wars (what the neocons want and Peter Schiff opposes), and believe that we should bomb nuclear facilities in the hypothetical situation that our intelligence find that Iran as about to get a bomb.

One position says: Let's continue the wars.
Schiff says: Let's end the wars, but we might bomb nuclear facilities if some conditions are met.

Schiff says: Let's end the wars, but we might bomb nuclear facilities if some conditions are met and start a bigger war.

There is actually a better argument for finishing the wars we are already in than starting another war with a bigger more populated country like Iran.

[Daamien]

Did you ever here him say congress should declare war before bombing Iran?

Did you ever hear him say that Congress should not declare war before bombing Iran?

[klamath]

Also, a war with Iran would probably last a day. We bomb the nuclear facilities and we are done.

But they would not be done.

[low preference guy]

There is actually a better argument for finishing the wars we are already in than starting another war with a bigger more populated country like Iran.

Are you aware that Schiff is for finishing the wars that we are already in?

[low preference guy]

But they would not be done.

But they will lose the capacity to attack us with nuclear bombs or give them to terrorists. That's all we care about. Once the risk is over, we should start trading with them, which will diminish the incentives for war, as the great Bastiat argued.

[klamath]

Did you ever hear him say that Congress should not declare war before bombing Iran?

No but I specifically heard him say we should just bomb them. You tell me where is the declaration of war in there.

[dannno]

Schiff says: Let's end the wars, but we might bomb nuclear facilities if some conditions are met and start a bigger war.

There is actually a better argument for finishing the wars we are already in than starting another war with a bigger more populated country like Iran.

Really??

The fact is if we end our overseas empire and stop supporting Israel (both positions of Schiff), then Iran will want to be friends with us because they are very much against our overseas empire and supporting Israel. That's why they hate us, right? So if we do that, then they won't be a threat anymore. They can even develop nuclear weapons and Schiff won't bomb them because they won't be a threat.

[low preference guy]

No but I specifically heard him say we should just bomb them. You tell me where is the declaration of war in there.

I specifically heard him saying that we should declare wars, in general.

When he was asked the question about Iran, he was not asked about declarations of war. There are many questions and time is limited. One can just answer about what one was asked. He was not asked, "should we declare a war on Iran?".

[klamath]

Are you aware that Schiff is for finishing the wars that we are already in?

Finishing until the countries are peaceful and stable again or just pulling out and calling them finished?

[Meatwasp]

Are you aware that Schiff is for finishing the wars that we are already in?

If he wants to finish the wars why don't he say, "Bring the troops home". I am not buying any of that.
Dr Paul would bring them ALL home. What's the problem with that Zeez

[low preference guy]

Finishing until the countries are peaceful and stable again or just pulling out and calling them finished?

He is for finishing them now. He is against nation building. Watch the interview with The State, a tv station in Connecticut. He said: I was opposed to the Iraq was from the beginning. I said it was going to be another Vietnam, and I was right. I don't have access to the intelligence and all the details, but from what I can see, there is no purpose in being in Afghanistan.

[klamath]

Really??

The fact is if we end our overseas empire and stop supporting Israel (both positions of Schiff), then Iran will want to be friends with us because they are very much against our overseas empire and supporting Israel. That's why they hate us, right? So if we do that, then they won't be a threat anymore. They can even develop nuclear weapons and Schiff won't bomb them because they won't be a threat.

Show me where Schiff says he supports cutting of aid to Israel?

[dannno]

Bombing a nuclear facility in Iran vs. Our current global empire is like comparing a piece of sand to an entire beach.

I just can't dismiss an economic genius who wants to end our foreign empire (all 700+ bases) just because he wants to bomb a nuclear facility in Iran...Not that they don't have every right to their nuclear facilities, but there are bigger issues in our interventions at the moment..Like INNOCENT PEOPLE...That is a much bigger issue, and so is our economy..

Schiff doesn't want to impose sanctions, he doesn't want to invade and occupy ANYBODY, he wants to end our foreign empire. He made a comment I don't agree with, but not because I don't agree with it on principle but because the facts he used were misguided.

[dannno]

Show me where Schiff says he supports cutting of aid to Israel?

Ok, I'll try..

[klamath]

He is for finishing them now. He is against nation building. Watch the interview with The State, a tv station in Connecticut. He said: I was opposed to the Iraq was from the beginning. I said it was going to be another Vietnam, and I was right. I don't have access to the intelligence and all the details, but from what I can see, there is no purpose in being in Afghanistan.

That isn't ending them that is ending our involvement in them. Schiff is not a neocon and I never said he was. Schiff is also not a noninterventionist.

[disorderlyvision]

why is everyone hating on Iran, when was the last time they invaded another country? to my knowledge they have only fought defensive wars. They have countries surrounding them with nukes, why should they not be able to have them for defensive reasons?

[low preference guy]

klamath, I could ask you: Showed me a video where Schiff says he is FOR foreign aid to Israel. I don't think he was asked that explicitly, but you might want to call his show.

In general, Schiff supports the enumerated powers of the Constitution, and the government has no power to give money as aid to any country, that just Israel.

[Daamien]

I specifically heard him saying that we should declare wars, in general.

When he was asked the question about Iran, he was not asked about declarations of war. There are many questions and time is limited. One can just answer about what one was asked. He was not asked, "should we declare a war on Iran?".

Exactly. Viewing his comments about hypothetically bombing Iran through the perspective of a declared war isn't against our principles (we are not pacifists, we just believe in the rule of law and staying out of the affairs of other nations). Schiff has called himself a constitutionalist, believes that we can't afford foreign adventurism with all of our problems at home, and does not share a neoconservative philosophy of spreading democracy through war.

Yes, he allows for more foreign intervention than we would wish for, but to insinuate that he is a neocon is inane.

[klamath]

Bombing a nuclear facility in Iran vs. Our current global empire is like comparing a piece of sand to an entire beach.

I just can't dismiss an economic genius who wants to end our foreign empire (all 700+ bases) just because he wants to bomb a nuclear facility in Iran...Not that they don't have every right to their nuclear facilities, but there are bigger issues in our interventions at the moment..Like INNOCENT PEOPLE...That is a much bigger issue, and so is our economy..

Schiff doesn't want to impose sanctions, he doesn't want to invade and occupy ANYBODY, he wants to end our foreign empire. He made a comment I don't agree with, but not because I don't agree with it on principle but because the facts he used were misguided.

Bombing facilities in Iran with plutonium is not going to harm Iranian civilians? There will be some pretty nice fallout. You don't just go bomb Iran and not expect retaliation. You start the whole vicious cycle again.

Why do I feel like I am aguing with prowar republicans coming up with justifications for preeptive war?

[Meatwasp]

Bombing a nuclear facility in Iran vs. Our current global empire is like comparing a piece of sand to an entire beach.

I just can't dismiss an economic genius who wants to end our foreign empire (all 700+ bases) just because he wants to bomb a nuclear facility in Iran...Not that they don't have every right to their nuclear facilities, but there are bigger issues in our interventions at the moment..Like INNOCENT PEOPLE...That is a much bigger issue, and so is our economy..

Schiff doesn't want to impose sanctions, he doesn't want to invade and occupy ANYBODY, he wants to end our foreign empire. He made a comment I don't agree with, but not because I don't agree with it on principle but because the facts he used were misguided.

Dannno you shock me. How many people do you suppose would get killed with just a strike?. I never thought I would hear you aploding this?

[low preference guy]

I am not sure people will be killed. Nuclear facilities are usually isolated. They'll have warning. They can evacuate the facilities and no one will die directly from the bombing.

[low preference guy]

I am surprised how well this debate is going. No one insulted anyone yet, I think. I wasn't expecting this, but it's good. Let's see how long it stays this way.

[Meatwasp]

why is everyone hating on Iran, when was the last time they invaded another country? to my knowledge they have only fought defensive wars. They have countries surrounding them with nukes, why should they not be able to have them for defensive reasons?

That's what I would like to know

[klamath]

Exactly. Viewing his comments about hypothetically bombing Iran through the perspective of a declared war isn't against our principles (we are not pacifists, we just believe in the rule of law and staying out of the affairs of other nations). Schiff has called himself a constitutionalist, believes that we can't afford foreign adventurism with all of our problems at home, and does not share a neoconservative philosophy of spreading democracy through war.

Yes, he allows for more foreign intervention than we would wish for, but to insinuate that he is a neocon is inane.

What is even scarier is that he might not call bombing Iran a war so it doesn't need to be declared.
So does schiff say that if Iran developes Nuclear weapons he would be for congress declaring war on them so we can bomb them???

[klamath]

I am not sure people will be killed. Nuclear facilities are usually isolated. They'll have warning. They can evacuate the facilities and no one will die directly from the bombing.

I cannot believe this statement. There is always colateral damage. Those nuclear plants will be near or in cities.

[Meatwasp]

I am surprised how well this debate is going. No one insulted anyone yet, I think. I wasn't expecting this, but it's good. Let's see how long it stays this way.

we are not at a boiling point yet. Heh I am out of here I said my say.

[klamath]

Exactly. Viewing his comments about hypothetically bombing Iran through the perspective of a declared war isn't against our principles (we are not pacifists, we just believe in the rule of law and staying out of the affairs of other nations). Schiff has called himself a constitutionalist, believes that we can't afford foreign adventurism with all of our problems at home, and does not share a neoconservative philosophy of spreading democracy through war.

Yes, he allows for more foreign intervention than we would wish for, but to insinuate that he is a neocon is inane.

I have never called Schiff a neocon. In fact I have argued against people that have called him that.
He is for preeptive war because he thinks our national security would be at stake like 40 or 50% of other republicans. Buck is for declaring wars.

[dannno]

Show me where Schiff says he supports cutting of aid to Israel?

If he thinks we should give billions of free aid to Israel (especially in this economy, but also generally) then I'll stop supporting him, but I don't think that he does, that would be ridiculous based on everything else he says.

I'm still listening through some interviews that hint that they ask him this question on the search results page, but haven't found anything specific.

[dannno]

Bombing facilities in Iran with plutonium is not going to harm Iranian civilians? There will be some pretty nice fallout. You don't just go bomb Iran and not expect retaliation. You start the whole vicious cycle again.

Why do I feel like I am aguing with prowar republicans coming up with justifications for preeptive war?

Why do you feel that way when we all agree that we should end our overseas empire (all 700+ bases) and bring our troops home?? I also said I disagree with his statement on Iran, I'm not justifying it, but it just seems like a non-issue relative to everything else.

I was against the Afghanistan War before it started because I knew they would be killing innocent people who had nothing to do with 9/11. I am very much against occupations.

[klamath]

If he thinks we should give billions of free aid to Israel (especially in this economy, but also generally) then I'll stop supporting him, but I don't think that he does, that would be ridiculous based on everything else he says.

I'm still listening through some interviews that hint that they ask him this question on the search results page, but haven't found anything specific.
I tried to find anything on this as well. I will be happy is he isn't for foreign aid to israel of any other country.

[dannno]

Dannno you shock me. How many people do you suppose would get killed with just a strike?. I never thought I would hear you aploding this?

I'm not applauding it, but don't you agree that bombing an Iranian Nuc facility is a grain of sand compared to the beach that is our foreign empire?? If not, I'm not sure that you are aware of the extent of our foreign empire.

Right now our military is pretending that remote villages with children are the enemy.. at least this is a building out in the middle of nowhere.. it's only ONE country, it's only ONE action, not an entire global matrix of civilian killing machines.

I'm just putting this in perspective.

[Slutter McGee]

I am getting so sick of this bullshit.

For those purists who shout, moan, and cry every time that one Schiff, Rand, or the CFL says something you don't like...go move to New Hampshire, get arrested for smoking weed in a protest, join the Libertarian Party, and have fun never making a fucking difference.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[klamath]

Why do you feel that way when we all agree that we should end our overseas empire (all 700+ bases) and bring our troops home?? I also said I disagree with his statement on Iran, I'm not justifying it, but it just seems like a non-issue relative to everything else.

I was against the Afghanistan War before it started because I knew they would be killing innocent people who had nothing to do with 9/11. I am very much against occupations.

Because some of the responses I am getting are exactly the same ones I fought against with fellow republicans on the wars in the middle east.

There seems to be an absolute no tolerance of other candidates on the issue of intervention in the middle east.

[Daamien]

What is even scarier is that he might not call bombing Iran a war so it doesn't need to be declared.
So does schiff say that if Iran developes Nuclear weapons he would be for congress declaring war on them so we can bomb them???

You're assuming that he would not call it a war on what basis? He's a self-proclaimed constitutionalist. Peter has said that he would drop bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities if they were developing weapons as a threat and were not letting inspectors in. Developing weapons as an aggressor with the intent to start or threaten hostilities rather than for self defense is an act of war. Separately Peter said that he believes in declaring wars. Dropping bombs on another sovereign nation is an act of war, and therefore he would be in favor of a declaration by Congress to authorize war. Maybe he would adapt Ron's approach to dealing with terrorists and authorize Letters of Marque and Reprisal for individuals to carry out sabotaging Iran's nuclear weapons. We don't know enough yet.

The problem here is that we are dealing in assumptions when the issue is not black and white. The logical thing to do would be to ask Peter more questions about Iran so that we better understand where he is coming from rather than opposing his campaign and calling him a neocon. Who knows, maybe we can educate him to be less in favor of intervention (although his stated support for intervention is already far less than Simmons who voted for the Iraq war, Linda McMahon who thinks we need to stay the course in Afghanistan, and likely Blumenthal who supports big-government intervention everywhere) and then he will be an even more agreeable candidate.

[The Patriot]

I am getting so sick of this bullshit.

For those purists who shout, moan, and cry every time that one Schiff, Rand, or the CFL says something you don't like...go move to New Hampshire, get arrested for smoking weed in a protest, join the Libertarian Party, and have fun never making a fucking difference.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Don't put all us Libertarians in one boat. I support Peter Schiff, though I don't think he will win. I personally like him on TV as a media personality talking about economics. That is really his forte.

[low preference guy]

What is even scarier is that he might not call bombing Iran a war so it doesn't need to be declared.

What's even scarier is that you suggest that Schiff might not call bombing Iran a war, without any evidence for doing so.

[johnrocks]

I am getting so sick of this bullshit.

For those purists who shout, moan, and cry every time that one Schiff, Rand, or the CFL says something you don't like...go move to New Hampshire, get arrested for smoking weed in a protest, join the Libertarian Party, and have fun never making a fucking difference.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

They will be part of the perpetually frustrated and the neo/social cons are loving them for it.

[low preference guy]

I am getting so sick of this bullshit.

For those purists who shout, moan, and cry every time that one Schiff, Rand, or the CFL says something you don't like...go move to New Hampshire, get arrested for smoking weed in a protest, join the Libertarian Party, and have fun never making a fucking difference.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

This debate was going fine and without any insults. Not all who disagree with Schiff (I personally agree with him by the way), disagree with Rand or CFL.

[klamath]

I'm not applauding it, but don't you agree that bombing an Iranian Nuc facility is a grain of sand compared to the beach that is our foreign empire?? If not, I'm not sure that you are aware of the extent of our foreign empire.

Right now our military is pretending that remote villages with children are the enemy.. at least this is a building out in the middle of nowhere.. it's only ONE country, it's only ONE action, not an entire global matrix of civilian killing machines.

I'm just putting this in perspective.

No, because when we bomb Iran terrorism will continue. The next time the middle eastern Iraning based terrorists get another lucky strike against the US people will want a war. Military planers figure logistics on how to deploy troops and guess what we need those bases to supply the war effort.
Don't kid yourself, if we get attacked again the American people will demand war. It is human nature. Did you feel pretty alone fighting against war after 911? That is the way it will be again.

[klamath]

You're assuming that he would not call it a war on what basis? He's a self-proclaimed constitutionalist. Peter has said that he would drop bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities if they were developing weapons as a threat and were not letting inspectors in. Developing weapons as an aggressor with the intent to start or threaten hostilities rather than for self defense is an act of war. Separately Peter said that he believes in declaring wars. Dropping bombs on another sovereign nation is an act of war, and therefore he would be in favor of a declaration by Congress to authorize war. Maybe he would take Ron's approach and authorize Letters of Marque and Reprisal for individuals to carry out sabotaging Iran's nuclear weapons. We don't know enough yet.

The problem here is that we are dealing in assumptions when the issue is not black and white. The logical thing to do would be to ask Peter more questions about Iran so that we better understand where he is coming from rather than opposing his campaign and calling him a neocon. Who knows, maybe we can educate him to be less in favor of intervention (although his stated support for intervention is already far less than Simmons who voted for the Iraq war, Linda McMahon who thinks we need to stay the course in Afghanistan, and likely Blumenthal who supports big-government intervention everywhere) and then he will be an even more agreeable candidate.

So where do we get that the Iranians are going to start a agressive war? What is their history?

[low preference guy]

So where do we get that the Iranians are going to start a agressive war? What is their history?

I personally believe that a third world country like Iran will not be able to make sure that the knowledge or weapons they develop won't end up in the hands of terrorists.

[Daamien]

So where do we get that the Iranians are going to start a agressive war? What is their history?

They have verbally stated their aggression to us quite clearly. Of course we don't know if they would actually start a war, but we are already dealing with hypotheticals, so assuming they did intend to start a war how is it bad to declare war and remove their nuclear capabilities?

For more context:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58120
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE59H0AH20091019
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7175325.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-08-iran-nuclear_x.htm

[dannno]

No, because when we bomb Iran terrorism will continue. The next time the middle eastern Iraning based terrorists get another lucky strike against the US people will want a war. Military planers figure logistics on how to deploy troops and guess what we need those bases to supply the war effort.
Don't kid yourself, if we get attacked again the American people will demand war. It is human nature. Did you feel pretty alone fighting against war after 911? That is the way it will be again.

If the only thing we did was bomb a Nuc facility in Iran, I don't think the terrorism will continue...

I mean, we are occupying several countries, we have 700+ bases around the globe including bases on holy lands, we have sanctions, we've slaughtered probably a half million or more innocent people in the last decade..then you have the secret CIA activities, overthrowing regimes, etc... all those things are what they are mad about.. one bomb on one nuc facility is a drop in the bucket, and if we got rid of all of those other things then Iran wouldn't be a threat in any way, shape or form.

[klamath]

I personally believe that a third world country like Iran will not be able to make sure that the knowledge or weapons they develop won't end up in the hands of terrorists.
Then obviously we need to keep pouring the troops into Pakistan as well. We must make sure those known weapons are protected from a an extrememist takeover.

[dannno]

Iran is not a third world country

:rolleyes:

[jmdrake]

Schiff is against our foreign empire, he wants to end the existing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is a HUGE difference than what Buck was saying.



I don't like to say anything about this, but personally I think in his heart he's more hawkish than Schiff. And that's a shame.

None of us can read hearts. Let's look at stated positions.

1) Gitmo: Rand said he'd keep it open and use a military tribunal for KSM. That's really not a war issue. KSM was arrested by Pakistani forces in Pakistan and extradited to the U.S. (Rand does seem to have his wires crossed on where KSM was picked up). Regardless the real question is due process, not war. You can get due process in a tribunal. I disagree with Rand because I don't think its necessary. It does sound like it would save money though.

I don't know of any Schiff statement on Gitmo.

2) Afghanistan: Rand said he would have declared war and attacked. Schiff said he would have attacked. (I'm not sure if he would have declared war. I seem to recall him saying something about sending in 5,000 troops immediately and getting it over with, but I might have my wires crossed). Rand brought this up to show how he would frame this issue differently than his father...but...Ron also voted for force authorization for Afghanistan....although he later said the power was abused and that there should have been a proper authorization of war. I've seen nothing from Rand about keeping troops in Afghanistan.

3) Iran: We all know what Schiff said. I don't know of any statement from Rand.

To me it seems to be a toss up at best. I would say Schiff seems more hawkish because he mentioned attacking a country we have not (officially) attacked post 9/11.

[low preference guy]

Then obviously we need to keep pouring the troops into Pakistan as well. We must make sure those known weapons are protected from a an extrememist takeover.

No, because they already have nuclear weapons. ONCE THEY HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS IT'S TOO LATE, BECAUSE THEY CAN USE IT. If we bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, we should do it when our intelligence have information that they are close to getting one.

[low preference guy]

\\

[low preference guy]

Iran is not a third world country

:rolleyes:

Ron Paul and I disagree with you, but this is sort of a side topic. Let's not further argue about it on this thread.

[klamath]

If the only thing we did was bomb a Nuc facility in Iran, I don't think the terrorism will continue...

I mean, we are occupying several countries, we have 700+ bases around the globe including bases on holy lands, we have sanctions, we've slaughtered probably a half million or more innocent people in the last decade.. all those things are what they are mad about.. one bomb on one nuc facility is a drop in the bucket, and if we got rid of all of those other things then Iran wouldn't be a threat in any way, shape or form.

Sorry no. We have not killed a half million people in the last decade. We may have insitgated the unrest that killed most of those people though, which we would be doing in Iran. Do you not think that every deformed baby every radiation burn of children would not be on al jazeer? There would be a frenzied hate in the muslim world yet another country. On top of that Schiff would only be voting for the war action he would not be president. Whomever was president would be running the main policy in the middle east and Schiffs vote for war would only add to the interventionist policy. Schiffs overall belief for an overall withdrawal would get nowhere but his vote to bomb Iran would become part of the US foreign policy.
Iran has not attacked us and they never have. It was the sworn statement of the soviets to destroy all capitalism, should we have preemptively Nuked them?

[Flash]

I agree. I think Rand is probably more of an interventionist than Schiff, in their hearts. I think Schiff probably said that he would attack Iran as a hypothetical just so he wouldn't look like a pussy in front of the Republican town committee members.

Whenever I go to Conservative forums and bring up Rand Paul I get the "He supports terroists" response, then I come here and people say Rand is hawkish interventionist. Is there any proof for this?

[jmdrake]

If the only thing we did was bomb a Nuc facility in Iran, I don't think the terrorism will continue...

I mean, we are occupying several countries, we have 700+ bases around the globe including bases on holy lands, we have sanctions, we've slaughtered probably a half million or more innocent people in the last decade..then you have the secret CIA activities, overthrowing regimes, etc... all those things are what they are mad about.. one bomb on one nuc facility is a drop in the bucket, and if we got rid of all of those other things then Iran wouldn't be a threat in any way, shape or form.

Iran already is not I threat. I've been over this a dozen time on this forum already. Maybe this should be made a sticky.

1) Iran was part of the U.S. led coalition that drove out the Taliban
2) Iran tried to give us Al Qaeda suspects in exchange for Islamo-Maxist terrorists we support who attack Iran. Iran's offer was refused.
3) Iran offered the "grand bargain" to Bush where they would have given up supporting Hezbollah and Hamas and even their peaceful nuke program in exchange for security guarantees.
4) Iran does not supply its own energy because it has no refineries. Nuclear power would give them the energy independence they crave.

Iran wants to survive. If we threaten their survival by attacking them may feel they have no choice but to retaliate.

[low preference guy]

It was the sworn statement of the soviets to destroy all capitalism, should we have preemptively Nuked them?

No, because they would have nuked us back. We can bomb Iran when they are close to getting a nuclear weapon, because when they don't have one, they can't nuke us.

[klamath]

No, because they already have nuclear weapons. ONCE THEY HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS IT'S TOO LATE, BECAUSE THEY CAN USE IT. If we bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, we should do it when our intelligence have information that they are close to getting one.
Should we not be going after those nukes we know exist and exist in a very unstable country. In a country far more unstable than Iran.

[low preference guy]

Should we not be going after those nukes we know exist and exist in a very unstable country. In a country far more unstable than Iran.

No, we shouldn't.

[dannno]

Sorry no. We have not killed a half million people in the last decade. We may have insitgated the unrest that killed most of those people though, which we would be doing in Iran. Do you not think that every deformed baby every radiation burn of children would not be on al jazeer? There would be a frenzied hate in the muslim world yet another country. On top of that Schiff would only be voting for the war action he would not be president. Whomever was president would be running the main policy in the middle east and Schiffs vote for war would only add to the interventionist policy. Schiffs overall belief for an overall withdrawal would get nowhere but his vote to bomb Iran would become part of the US foreign policy.
Iran has not attacked us and they never have. It was the sworn statement of the soviets to destroy all capitalism, should we have preemptively Nuked them?

Again he made the statement hypothetically.. I don't think he would just give any power to any President to do whatever they wanted intervention-wise.. he certainly hasn't said that he would.. all he said was that if Iran had nuclear capabilities and they were planning to attack us with them, then we should attack the nuke facility. In theory, I agree that if a country has an actual weapon that can kill people and is actually threatening to use it in an attack, then I don't believe the action of taking out that threat can be considered pre-emptive because the other side is actually threatening to do so. If I had a gun in my hand and said that i was going to shoot you with it, would you attack me in some way to prevent me from shooting you?

Of course, again, I am an Achmadinijad apologist and I know he doesn't have any intentions of using a nuke against the US, all the stuff in the media is hype.. I honestly think that Peter would figure that out before he made such a huge decision, he is smart enough for that, I think there is a certain amount of pandering going on in these statements and that's why I support him.

[klamath]

No, because they would have nuked us back. We can bomb Iran when they are close to getting a nuclear weapon, because when they don't have one, they can't nuke us.

You know what, I spent a year in Iraq looking for the nukes our intelligence told us were there.

[low preference guy]

You know what, I spent a year in Iraq looking for the nukes our intelligence told us were there.

It was obvious Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons, because if they did, we wouldn't attack them. Even I saw that. Ron Paul saw it. Peter Schiff is smart enough to see that.

Again, the only moment to attack nuclear facilities is BEFORE a bomb is completely developed, we have intelligence that they are about to finish it, and we don't trust the country to keep it from the hands of terrorists. That's Schiff's position.

You have a point in that intelligence failed us, but RP and Schiff both say that although what we have now is inefficient, we should have some form of intelligence. We should have something a lot better and efficient than what we have now.

[klamath]

Again he made the statement hypothetically.. I don't think he would just give any power to any President to do whatever they wanted intervention-wise.. he certainly hasn't said that he would.. all he said was that if Iran had nuclear capabilities and they were planning to attack us with them, then we should attack the nuke facility. In theory, I agree that if a country has an actual weapon that can kill people and is actually threatening to use it in an attack, then I don't believe the action of taking out that threat can be considered pre-emptive because the other side is actually threatening to do so. If I had a gun in my hand and said that i was going to shoot you with it, would you attack me in some way to prevent me from shooting you?

Of course, again, I am an Achmadinijad apologist and I know he doesn't have any intentions of using a nuke against the US, all the stuff in the media is hype.. I honestly think that Peter would figure that out before he made such a huge decision, he is smart enough for that, I think there is a certain amount of pandering going on in these statements and that's why I support him.
Is that what he said???? I heard "if they have the facility and refused to let inspectors in we should bomb them. I don't recall any mention of if they are going to attack us.

[dannno]

Iran already is not I threat. I've been over this a dozen time on this forum already. Maybe this should be made a sticky.



I completely agree that they aren't a threat, but they are more of a threat as we continue to support Israel and expand our empire, whereas if those things disappeared as Schiff advocates they would be even less of a threat. In fact they'd probably back us up if we stopped doing all of those things.

Schiff thinks they are a threat, and that is what his statement is based off of. Great, so he hasn't done enough research himself to find out that Iran isn't a threat and made a dumb statement.. that doesn't mean that if it came down to a vote on the issue he wouldn't take more time to really consider the implications.. it's just that he isn't a foreign policy expert, he spends all his time on the economy.

[klamath]

It was obvious Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons, because if they did, we wouldn't attack them. Even I saw that. Ron Paul saw it. Peter Schiff is smart enough to see that.

Again, the only moment to attack nuclear facilities is BEFORE a bomb is completely developed, we have intelligence that they are about to finish it, and we don't trust the country to keep it from the hands of terrorists. That's Schiff's position.
Iraq did have weapons of mass distruction and had agressively used them. They were forced to get rid of them by the force of the US military. Iraq attacked and used chemical weapons on Iran. Iraq used chemical weapons against their own people Iraq attacked a US warship and killed 37 US servicemen long before we invaded them.
You are making a very good argument for Bush's invasion of Iraq.

[low preference guy]

Iraq did have weapons of mass distruction and had agressively used them.

Where in the world did I mention weapons of mass destruction? I'm talking about nuclear weapons.

[klamath]

I completely agree that they aren't a threat, but they are more of a threat as we continue to support Israel and expand our empire, whereas if those things disappeared as Schiff advocates they would be even less of a threat. In fact they'd probably back us up if we stopped doing all of those things.

Schiff thinks they are a threat, and that is what his statement is based off of. Great, so he hasn't done enough research himself to find out that Iran isn't a threat and made a dumb statement.. that doesn't mean that if it came down to a vote on the issue he wouldn't take more time to really consider the implications.. it's just that he isn't a foreign policy expert, he spends all his time on the economy.

Have you found his statement where he wants to quit supporting Israel?

[low preference guy]

Have you found his statement where he wants to quit supporting Israel?

He said the main function of government is national defense, and that the Government should do only what the enumerated powers allow it to do. There is no enumerated power to do international charity, so I'm quite sure he is against it.

I have not found a explicit statement about Israel either way. I don't think he was asked that explicitly.

[dannno]

Is that what he said???? I heard "if they have the facility and refuse to let inspectors in we should bomb them. I don't recall any mention of if they are going to attack us.

He's made a couple statements on this and I think he's used the word "threat", but he has to consider them a threat otherwise he wouldn't bomb their facility.

This is why I tend to argue that Schiff is still in the ballpark on his principles, because he is misinformed regarding the threat... he actually thinks there is a threat, therefore if the weapon exists destroy the facility.. that's the same PRINCIPLE most of us are working off of, we're just basing it off a different set of facts. That's why I am confident that if it actually came down to where Schiff had to make a decision, he'd take the issue more seriously and I think ultimately he'd get it right.

[klamath]

Where in the world did I mention weapons of mass destruction? I'm talking about nuclear weapons.

They are the same. Chemical weapons could actually kill more than a nuclear weapon. Look up blood agents look up nerve agents look up anthrax. Look at what it does to the human body. Inceneration in a Nuclear blast would be a blessing.

[dannno]

Have you found his statement where he wants to quit supporting Israel?

No I had to go back to work.. was in the middle of an interview.

[low preference guy]

They are the same. Chemical weapons could actually kill more than a nuclear weapon. Look up blood agents look up nerve agents look up anthrax. Look at what it does to the human body. Inceneration in a Nuclear blast would be a blessing.

They are the same to you, but it isn't what I am talking about. I'm talking about nuclear weapons.

Also, in the video you always post, Schiff says "If the Iranians have nuclear weapons, well, if we really believed that..."

[klamath]

He's made a couple statements on this and I think he's used the word "threat", but he has to consider them a threat otherwise he wouldn't bomb their facility.

This is why I tend to argue that Schiff is still in the ballpark on his principles, because he is misinformed regarding the threat... he actually thinks there is a threat, therefore if the weapon exists destroy the facility.. that's the same PRINCIPLE most of us are working off of, we're just basing it off a different set of facts. That's why I am confident that if it actually came down to where Schiff had to make a decision, he'd take the issue more seriously and I think ultimately he'd get it right.

I am afraid I have to go by what he said and not by what I think he might learn.
I don't care what you think about Bush, but he felt Iraq and Afganistan were a threat. When the President of the US has to run and hide in a domesday hole he feels the country is threatened.

[klamath]

They are the same to you, but it isn't what I am talking about. I'm talking about nuclear weapons.

Also, in the video you always post, Schiff says "If the Iranians have nuclear weapons, well, if we really believe that...

So why should nuclear weapons be attacked yet not chemical biological weapons?

[low preference guy]

So why should nuclear weapons be attacked yet not chemical biological weapons?

That's a different topic. The topic of this thread is based on what Schiff said about a possible war in Iran. He talked about nuclear weapons.

If I have something to say about the difference between nuclear and biological weapons, I wouldn't do it on this thread because it distracts from the actual important discussion. Feel free to start another thread if you want to talk about those differences.

[tpreitzel]

CFL is getting torn to shreds for supporting a candidate that supports the afgan war yet schiff supports a preemptive war on Iran??

I think some people need to do some soul searching.

Personally, the C4L is finally getting some overdue attention of their organization. The pro-war stance of Buck is simply the main issue driving the examination of this organization. The C4L has been largely bereft of critical examination since its inception. I've supported Schiff and will continue to support him. Although, I personally don't agree with the view of preemptive war, I've yet to find an ideal candidate in my lifetime. Furthermore, some of the candidates that many ASSUME to be ideal will soon enough be shown not to be. ;)

Work for the most constitutionally principled candidate that we can find while realizing that every candidate will come short of the ideal.

[Stary Hickory]

You guys are up shit creek then....enjoy a declining base of influence. If you honestly cannot support someone like Schiff who can you support? Schiff is not pro war, he is not pro interventionism, he is not pro preemptive war. He has made that abundantly clear so many times.

[klamath]

He said the main function of government is national defense, and that the Government should do only what the enumerated powers allow it to do. There is no enumerated power to do international charity, so I'm quite sure he is against it.

I have not found a explicit statement about Israel either way. I don't think he was asked that explicitly.

Have you ever heard him say he will cut off all foreign aid, not that you assume that he would be against it? I personally don't know.

[klamath]

You guys are up shit creek then....enjoy a declining base of influence. If you honestly cannot support someone like Schiff who can you support? Schiff is not pro war, he is not pro interventionism, he is not pro preemptive war. He has made that abundantly clear so many times.
He has made it abundantly clear he would be for a preemptive war.

[low preference guy]

He has made it abundantly clear he would be for a preemptive war.

Yes, you are wrong about that one SH. Peter said in a hypothetical scenario he would be OK with striking Iran first. Even though I support Schiff mainly for his overall position on the Constitution and economic issues, I also agree with him on this issue of Iran.

[Stary Hickory]

He has made it abundantly clear he would be for a preemptive war.

Not hardly YOU guys have said this. I have watched what he has said. Well I don't know what to tell you....I am starting to think its the folks on these boards that will destroy the movement. The attitude that I have seen lately indicates that this movement is moving to the fringe again. You have taken one or two sentences from thousands that we have of Schiff and tried to crucify him over it. I just dont get it?

What do you want? Where will you find allies? I see this Schiff bashing us destructive and unproductive.

[klamath]

That's a different topic. The topic of this thread is based on what Schiff said about a possible war in Iran. He talked about nuclear weapons.

If I have something to say about the difference between nuclear and biological weapons, I wouldn't do it on this thread because it distracts from the actual important discussion. Feel free to start another thread if you want to talk about those differences.

the reason it applys is because we went to war with Iraq because we thought we were threathened by the mass killing ability of WMD. Is not the threat of Iran getting nuclear weapons and the mass killing ability of those weapons what Schiff is talking about?

[low preference guy]

Have you ever heard him say he will cut off all foreign aid, not that you assume that he would be against it? I personally don't know.

I haven't heard him say explicitly. But if he said it, it would contradict everything he has said before. I doubt he will be for foreign aid if he says all times that "we are broke".

If he is for foreign aid, it would mean he was lying when he talked about the enumerated powers of the Constitution. I don't believe he is a lair, I have no evidence whatsoever to believe that.

[klamath]

Yes, you are wrong about that one SH. Peter said in a hypothetical scenario he would be OK with striking Iran first. Even though I support Schiff mainly for his overall position on the Constitution and economic issues, I also agree with him on this issue of Iran.

I disagree with you but you are honest in your principles.

[V-rod]

If Rand Paul or Schiff said they were going to close down only 50% of overseas bases, some will be like "OMG NEOCON!!11! Say NO to supporting this evil interventionist!!1!!1!!".

[pacelli]

Why do I feel like I am aguing with prowar republicans coming up with justifications for preeptive war?

Because the assumption seems to begin with the concept, "Iran is not permitted to have nuclear weapons". It is the same assumption that pro-war republicans foster. This assumption is the basis for sanctions. You can't have sanctions without inspectors.

Sanctions are an act of war.

Ron Paul seems to agree:

YouTube - 10/28/09 Ron Paul: Sanctions on Iran are an Act of War! (Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYX9xhRi_to)

Here's another for ya:

YouTube - Dr. Paul on the Iranian Nuclear Program (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YGiuF97fRE)

Food for thought.

[klamath]

I haven't heard him say explicitly. But if he said it, it would contradict everything he has said before. I doubt he will be for foreign aid if he says all times that "we are broke".

If he is for foreign aid, it would mean he was lying when he talked about the enumerated powers of the Constitution. I don't believe he is a lair, I have no evidence whatsoever to believe that.

He may not be interpeting the constitution as you do and not think it is a lie.

[sofia]

cant you all see that Schiff is just throwing a bone to the neo-cons...nothing to be alarmed about.

I cant see Schiff ever voting for pre-emptive war...relax

[klamath]

Because the assumption seems to begin with the concept, "Iran is not permitted to have nuclear weapons". It is the same assumption that pro-war republicans foster. This assumption is the basis for sanctions. You can't have sanctions without inspectors.

Sanctions are an act of war.

Ron Paul seems to agree:

YouTube - 10/28/09 Ron Paul: Sanctions on Iran are an Act of War! (Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYX9xhRi_to)

Here's another for ya:

YouTube - Dr. Paul on the Iranian Nuclear Program (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YGiuF97fRE)

Food for thought.

Though I disagree with sanctions I don't think they are an act of war. Embargos and air raids are acts of war.

[dannno]

cant you all see that Schiff is just throwing a bone to the neo-cons...nothing to be alarmed about.

I cant see Schiff ever voting for pre-emptive war...relax

Not only this, he was talking about a completely mythical, hypothetical situation that he KNOWS only exists in the minds of the brainwashed neocon he was talking to..

IF Iran had nuclear weapons (which Schiff doesn't believe..), IF Iran was a threat (which Schiff would have to prove to HIMSELF first which has not been done), THEN he might consider attacking the facilities.. not a full scale invasion..

One question I never got answered was if I had a gun and told you I was going to shoot you, wouldn't you attack me in some form to prevent that from happening? Iran doesnt' have a gun, and they aren't threatening us.. therefore Schiff's hypothetical situation will probably never happen..

The most important thing is that he wants to end the wars overseas, bring our troops home, end our foreign empire, abolish various departments within our government and ensure that our government is protecting individual liberty first and foremost..

I'm really not sure where this comparison to Buck comes in at all.

[DjLoTi]

Wow talk about over reacting. That video was interesting and I'd be interested to know what Peter Schiff thought if something went through congress going into Iran. Honestly, depending on the circumstances and hypothetical reality, I'm nearly 100% confident I'd be glad that Peter Schiff was in congress. He would probably give us information that could help keep government accountable.

Peter Schiff is *on our side*. Nobody's perfect but I dream 2 see the day Peter Schiff can stand in the halls of congress and say no to the bailouts, the health care, and the special interest. That would be wonderful.

If something happens in Iran in the next 2 years I doubt anyone else could do a better job then Peter Schiff. I mean you have 2 options, yes or no. We're either $&^%#$ or we're not &#$^%#, but electing someone other then Peter Schiff won't make a beneficial difference for us.

Lets focus on the positives and alternatives. There are lots of positives, and there are no better alternatives, but personally I think the positives are really great. People may disagree, but I do not disagree with myself :)

[klamath]

Not only this, he was talking about a completely mythical, hypothetical situation that he KNOWS only exists in the minds of the brainwashed neocon he was talking to..

IF Iran had nuclear weapons (which Schiff doesn't believe..), IF Iran was a threat (which Schiff would have to prove to HIMSELF first which has not been done), THEN he might consider attacking the facilities.. not a full scale invasion..

One question I never got answered was if I had a gun and told you I was going to shoot you, wouldn't you attack me in some form to prevent that from happening? Iran doesnt' have a gun, and they aren't threatening us.. therefore Schiff's hypothetical situation will probably never happen..

The most important thing is that he wants to end the wars overseas, bring our troops home, end our foreign empire, abolish various departments within our government and ensure that our government is protecting individual liberty first and foremost..

I'm really not sure where this comparison to Buck comes in at all.

An air bombing air raid is an act of war. Schiff stated specifically when and on what conditions he would be for attacking Iran. There was nothing wishy washy to his statement.
Iran is very definately trying to develope nuclear weapons.

Sorry but this is not about a guy pointing a weapon at you. This is about a guy you don't like next door buying a gun. Do you have the right to go shoot him? Has Iran ever said they are building a weapon and are going to use it on us??

[jmdrake]

You guys are up shit creek then....enjoy a declining base of influence. If you honestly cannot support someone like Schiff who can you support? Schiff is not pro war, he is not pro interventionism, he is not pro preemptive war. He has made that abundantly clear so many times.

You guys? I've only seen a handful (or less) saying they wouldn't support Schiff. And that's no different from those who said that back when the Schiff / Iran video came out! Take a chill pill. If somebody decides Schiffs position isn't good enough and instead donates to Kokesh or Harris what's the harm?

Also realize that there is more than one way to grow a base. One is to ignore difference with people you disagree with. Another is to educate. Ask yourself this. How does endorsing the idea of bombing a country because you have "intelligence" of nukes and "they won't let inspectors in"? How different is that from what we've been arguing against? I wouldn't throw Schiff under the bus over this. But clearly it's not helpful.

[Cosmo BG]

Also, a war with Iran would probably last a day. We bomb the nuclear facilities and we are done.

Yes, they'll greet us as liberators and shower us with rose petals. Don Rumsfeld, is that you?

Certainly one of the most detrimental aspects of America's Permanent Wars is this idea among some folks that we can simply go around bombing whoever we want with impunity, and that we are actually capable of doing it even if there were no moral implications.

Russia and China, among many other countries, do serious business with Iran. Iran actually has a functional military. There would be no reason why they could not claim the right to retaliate against the US if we simply tried to bomb them from a distance and leave. And the fact is that those kinds of military operations require extensive close-proximity support.

It's not like the movies.

[klamath]

Not only this, he was talking about a completely mythical, hypothetical situation that he KNOWS only exists in the minds of the brainwashed neocon he was talking to..

IF Iran had nuclear weapons (which Schiff doesn't believe..), IF Iran was a threat (which Schiff would have to prove to HIMSELF first which has not been done), THEN he might consider attacking the facilities.. not a full scale invasion..

One question I never got answered was if I had a gun and told you I was going to shoot you, wouldn't you attack me in some form to prevent that from happening? Iran doesnt' have a gun, and they aren't threatening us.. therefore Schiff's hypothetical situation will probably never happen..

The most important thing is that he wants to end the wars overseas, bring our troops home, end our foreign empire, abolish various departments within our government and ensure that our government is protecting individual liberty first and foremost..

I'm really not sure where this comparison to Buck comes in at all.

People are literally advocating physical violence against members of CFL for supporting a guy that believes the wars in Iraq and afganistan are protecting our freedoms.
People are actively trying to destroy RPs organization over Bucks stand on the war. People are willing to take the CFL along with RP down over Bucks stand on the war.
This is the issue we never compromise we are told. If it takes down the RP movement so be it, the fight for liberty will go on we are told.

Am I the one over reacting?????

[jmdrake]

why is war a problem as long as you're a fiscal responsible person who hates fiat currency and loves gold?

You're joking right? Elective wars by their very nature are not "fiscally responsible".

[Stary Hickory]

You guys? I've only seen a handful (or less) saying they wouldn't support Schiff. And that's no different from those who said that back when the Schiff / Iran video came out! Take a chill pill. If somebody decides Schiffs position isn't good enough and instead donates to Kokesh or Harris what's the harm?

Also realize that there is more than one way to grow a base. One is to ignore difference with people you disagree with. Another is to educate. Ask yourself this. How does endorsing the idea of bombing a country because you have "intelligence" of nukes and "they won't let inspectors in"? How different is that from what we've been arguing against? I wouldn't throw Schiff under the bus over this. But clearly it's not helpful.


For starters I am chill(so please trying to represent me as if I were in a state of mania thank you very much), if you notice I don't start these threads I merely reply in them. But they are popping up more and more, many are going after C4L over a ill conceived survey designed to try and reign in potential candidates and hold them accountable to moral principles. Perhaps stupid but still the reasoning was sound.

I have seen that Schiff video and in no way am I convinced he is for preemptive war. The things is for those that hate Schiff, what is left? Schiff is an amazing candidate. It just makes no sense to me really, we have great candidates out there and some are willing to throw them under the bus. Like I have said if you can't support Schiff good luck finding anyone...I almost guarantee I can find problems with something every candidate has said at one time or another.

[catdd]

You're joking right? Elective wars by their very nature are not "fiscally responsible".

+1

[jmdrake]

For starters I am chill(so please trying to represent me as if I were in a state of mania thank you very much), if you notice I don't start these threads I merely reply in them. But they are popping up more and more, many are going after C4L over a ill conceived survey designed to try and reign in potential candidates and hold them accountable to moral principles. Perhaps stupid but still the reasoning was sound.

I have seen that Schiff video and in no way am I convinced he is for preemptive war. The things is for those that hate Schiff, what is left? Schiff is an amazing candidate. It just makes no sense to me really, we have great candidates out there and some are willing to throw them under the bus. Like I have said if you can't support Schiff good luck finding anyone...I almost guarantee I can find problems with something every candidate has said at one time or another.

Fine. You're not convinced of it. Others are. So what? Nothing's changes on the Schiff divide since it first came out. People are angry (rightfully so IMO) of what is in all intents and purposes and endorsement by the CFL of someone that supports staying in Afghanistan perhaps as long as McCain would. That's not just a "difference". It's a violation of a core principle. No I'm not talking about the crappy 20 question survey the CFL put together. I'm the 4 core principles Ron espoused right after suspending his campaign. Here they are again in case you forgot.

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

As for "throwing Schiff under the bus", did anybody say anything about actively campaigning against him? Now? Then what's your problem? You want to donate to Schiff, go right ahead. But he's not the only person running. Others want to send their money to other candidates? Fine. While you're right that no candidate is "perfect", I can think of quite a few that solid on all 4 of Ron's core principles. No question about it. R.J. Harris, Adam Kokesh and Debra Medina to name a few. For that matter even Rand's statements don't violate these core principles since Gitmo isn't a "secret prison" and Rand didn't endorse a "secret tribunal". Schiff's statement is borderline.

You seem focused only on those who have criticized Schiff. You seem oblivious to those who have used Schiff's statement to justify supporting candidates no matter what their foreign policy. Whether you realize it or not, that's just as damaging to the movement as criticizing Schiff. Perhaps even more so. We can always find new candidates. And the odds are that Schiff won't win this year whether he's criticized or not. (Yeah it's possible. And a Ron win was possible. Just not probable.) But once you lose a message, it's gone for good.

There are no sacred cows in this movement. Certainly no sacred candidates. Advocate for Schiff all you want. But when you start criticizing others for bringing up legitimate concerns you aren't really helping him or the movement.

[erowe1]

I'm not part of the crowd that uses noninterventionism as a litmus test that will completely remove any possibility of my having any level of support for a politician if they fail that test. There are different levels of support I will give a politician. Some, like Ron Paul, I may be very devoted to helping, and others I may not do much for but will end up voting for them. And there are levels in between for someone like John Hostettler, who comes close enough for me to give significant support. An example of a politician who comes a notch below Hostettler, but who is an interventionist, whom I still think is worth supporting in some measure, is Jeff Flake.

Is Ken Buck as good as Jeff Flake? Maybe. I don't really know. I'd never heard of him before this drama. And it may be that had I encountered him under different circumstances, I would be more open to him. And maybe after this blows over if he continues to campaign on very good policies apart from his Afghanistan war position, I may warm up to him.

But another major aspect of this episode is all the duplicity on the part of CFL about it. I don't appreciate their pretending that the ad is just an ad for the CFL surveys and not an ad for Ken Buck. I also don't like the way it looks like the whole thing was designed for that very purpose and funded by Ken Buck backers who used CFL as a front organization to get around campaign finance laws, and how those on the inside of the situation are so conspicuously avoiding talking about that point.

[qh4dotcom]

cant you all see that Schiff is just throwing a bone to the neo-cons...nothing to be alarmed about.

I cant see Schiff ever voting for pre-emptive war...relax

Exactly

I donated and will do so again.

Look guys, I don't agree with this extremely unlikely possibility of Schiff voting to bomb Iran but what you all forgot is that when he's in the Senate he'll still be listening to his supporters. If we talked him into running, we can talk him out of bombing Iran. Schiff is a fighter and the best man for the job, no other liberty candidate has a bigger grudge against big government than Schiff. When he gets to the Senate you can bet he'll be talking and talking and screaming on the Senate floor until he drops dead or accomplishes his goal of shrinking government....as for the abortion thing, he has already stated that he'll be neutral, abortion is not the constitutional business of the federal government and up to the states to decide.

[jmdrake]

Also, a war with Iran would probably last a day. We bomb the nuclear facilities and we are done.

That all depends on Iran's reaction. If Iran decided "screw it. We're not going to take this anymore" that could really cause us great harm. In war games Iran sunk our whole fleet (http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3793). Now you may be thinking "So what? That's just war games". Well I'll tell you what. Remember Perl Harbor? The Japanese attack was based on the U.S. war game.

Further don't forget the Islamic republic we just helped create in Iraq is closer to Iran than they are to us. And then there are the Iranian assets Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel tried to dislodge Hezbollah from Lebanon and failed miserably. Some think that's why Israel hasn't attacked Iran already.

Of course Iran could just "hunker down and take it". They've taken a lot from us lately, including U.S. backed Islamo-marxist terrorist attacks against Iran (http://www.campaigniran.org/CASMII/index.php?q=node/5551) and the fact of U.S. special forces operating in Iran since at least 2005 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4180087.stm). They take this because an all out war between Iran and the U.S. and Iran would be insane. So your scenario depends both on the sanity of the Iranian leadership and the belief of the Iranian leadership that we are sane too. Not a hopeful proposition.

[klamath]

That all depends on Iran's reaction. If Iran decided "screw it. We're not going to take this anymore" that could really cause us great harm. In war games Iran sunk our whole fleet (http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3793). Now you may be thinking "So what? That's just war games". Well I'll tell you what. Remember Perl Harbor? The Japanese attack was based on the U.S. war game.

Further don't forget the Islamic republic we just helped create in Iraq is closer to Iran than they are to us. And then there are the Iranian assets Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel tried to dislodge Hezbollah from Lebanon and failed miserably. Some think that's why Israel hasn't attacked Iran already.

Of course Iran could just "hunker down and take it". They've taken a lot from us lately, including U.S. backed Islamo-marxist terrorist attacks against Iran (http://www.campaigniran.org/CASMII/index.php?q=node/5551) and the fact of U.S. special forces operating in Iran since at least 2005 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4180087.stm). They take this because an all out war between Iran and the U.S. and Iran would be insane. So your scenario depends both on the sanity of the Iranian leadership and the belief of the Iranian leadership that we are sane too. Not a hopeful proposition.

And if they don't fight back imediately they will without a doubt sponsor any terrorist organization on earth to attack us for years to come.
If we have pulled out of all those countries yet pulled this stunt it would discredit non interventionism forever. All it would take is for Iran getting one high profile attack against us to get even and the mantra will be "look we tried to be noninterventionist and look they attacked. Screw that let's F they over good this time!"
Peal Harbor is a great example of what happens to noninterventionism if the american people believe our country is minding its own business and gets attacked.
65 years later it is all we get thrown in our faces.

[InterestedParticipant]

And if they don't fight back imediately they will without a doubt sponsor any terrorist organization on earth to attack us for years to come.
If we have pulled out of all those countries yet pulled this stunt it would discredit non interventionism forever. All it would take is for Iran getting one high profile attack against us to get even and the mantra will be "look we tried to be noninterventionist and look they attacked. Screw that let's F they over good this time!"
Peal Harbor is a great example of what happens to noninterventionism if the american people believe our country is minding its own business and gets attacked.
65 years later it is all we get thrown in our faces.
Is this discusion serious?

The US installed the Mullahs, the Shah, Khomeini and every leader since. We control Iran. They do as we say. There will be no attacks, unless we say so. This is propaganda, and I'm incredulous that anyone is taking it seriously.

[low preference guy]

He may not be interpeting the constitution as you do and not think it is a lie.

I would answer with a Schiff quote that I agree with:

The Constitution is not to be interpreted. It's to be enforced. The Constitution is not written in Chinese. There is nothing to interpret.

[low preference guy]

Yes, they'll greet us as liberators and shower us with rose petals. Don Rumsfeld, is that you?

Certainly one of the most detrimental aspects of America's Permanent Wars is this idea among some folks that we can simply go around bombing whoever we want with impunity, and that we are actually capable of doing it even if there were no moral implications.

Russia and China, among many other countries, do serious business with Iran. Iran actually has a functional military. There would be no reason why they could not claim the right to retaliate against the US if we simply tried to bomb them from a distance and leave. And the fact is that those kinds of military operations require extensive close-proximity support.

It's not like the movies.

It would like a day because he would bomb the nuclear facilities and come home. If you are a new member, it's a good idea to familiarize yourself with the content of the discussion. Bombing a nuclear facility in a day is doable in real life.

[klamath]

It would like a day because he would bomb the nuclear facilities and come home. If you are a new member, it's a good idea to familiarize yourself with the content of the discussion. Bombing a nuclear facility in a day is doable in real life.

And how exactly do you get an airstrike from the US to Iran with no refueling bases anywhere off our soil?
The strike may last a day but the blowback could last decades.

[klamath]

I would answer with a Schiff quote that I agree with:

The Constitution is not to be interpreted. It's to be enforced. The Constitution is not written in Chinese. There is nothing to interpret.

Where specifically in the constitution does it prohibit the congress from voting for foreign aid?

[low preference guy]

Where specifically in the constitution does it prohibit the congress from voting for foreign aid?

I'm shocked by your question. The Constitution prohibits the government to do anything except those things listed in the enumerated powers.

To determine whether an action is Constitutional or not, one does not ask: Where is that prohibited? One asks: Where is that allowed?

It surprises me that you are a member of the RPF and do not know this, since RP has been teaching it for decades.

[klamath]

I'm shocked by your question. The Constitution prohibits the government to do anything except those things listed in the enumerated powers.

To determine whether an action is Constitutional or not, one does not ask: Where is that prohibited? One asks: Where is that allowed?

It surprises me that you are a member of the RPF and do not know this, since RP has been teaching it for decades.

Be careful newby.

Does Schiff know. He has left enough open with his we will just bomb them answer to make me question his interpetation of the constitution. People are claiming a lot of stuff abut Schiff but can't come up with his statements on specific subjects to back the claims up. I can come up with thousands of GOP and Democratic politicians that claim to be following a strict interpetation of the constitution. I want to see specific answers to different subjects before I can make my determination if they interpet the constitution as I do.

[low preference guy]

Be careful newby.

Does Schiff know. He has left enough open with his we will just bomb them answer to make me question his interpetation of the constitution. People are claiming a lot of stuff abut Schiff but can't come up with his statements on specific subjects to back the claims up. I can come up with thousands of GOP and Democratic politicians that claim to be following a strict interpetation of the constitution. I want to see specific answers to different subjects before I can make my determination if they interpet the constitution as I do.

YouTube - GDP, Spending, Time, Constitution - Peter Schiff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KxxloztWX8)

A few seconds after 4:45: "And remember, the Constitution has to specifically delegate a power to the Federal Government, or it doesn't have it". He starts talking about the Constitution at 4:15.

Despite your number of posts, apparently the newbie here is you.

[klamath]

YouTube - GDP, Spending, Time, Constitution - Peter Schiff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KxxloztWX8)

A few seconds after 4:45. "And remember, the Constitution has to specifically delegate a power to the Federal Government, or it doesn't have it". He starts talking about the Constitution at 4:15.

Despite your number of posts, apparently the newbie here is you.

When did you first hear about RP? Since you decided to make it personal instead of following issues of the debate.

[low preference guy]

Either in 2006 or 2007, don't remember exactly, but before his Presidential campaign. I was thrilled when he decided to run but during that time I was spending more time at the Daily Paul. I joined RPF recently, although I've been a lurker.

Also, I didn't make it personal, you did when you called me "newby". I was honestly shocked by your question, since it implied you have the opposite view to that of Ron Paul.

Did you listen to Peter at 4:45?

[klamath]

Either in 2006 or 2007, don't remember exactly, but before his Presidential campaign. I was thrilled when he decided to run but during that time I was spending more time at the Daily Paul. I joined RPF recently, although I've been a lurker.

Also, I didn't make it personal, you did when you called me "newby". I was honestly shocked by your question, since it implied you have the opposite view to that of Ron Paul.

Did you listen to Peter at 4:45?

No you could have just atated that if it is not specified in the constitution it means it is not authorized. You didn't have to question my membership in the RP forums.
I have known of RP since he was part of the Texas delegation at the 1976
republican convention. He blew a horn on the convention floor for 40 minutes in support of Ronald Reagan.

Edit; Unfortunately I can't watch that video as I am on a band width restriction. I will watch it later, thanks for posting it.

[low preference guy]

Question: Was your position that the Constitution have to prohibit something, otherwise it is authorized? That was what I understood from your question "Where specifically in the constitution does it prohibit the congress from voting for foreign aid?". If so, isn't that a reason to express shock? I didn't question your membership, I expressed shock. Only an unbelievable big coincidence would allow not hearing Ron Paul's position on the Enumerated Powers of the Constitution after following him for so long. It is possible, but extremely unlikely. I'll believe it if you tell me, because I know unlikely things can and do happen.

[klamath]

Question: Was your position that the Constitution have to prohibit something, otherwise it is authorized? That was what I understood from your question "Where specifically in the constitution does it prohibit the congress from voting for foreign aid?". If so, isn't that a reason to express shock? I didn't question your membership, I expressed shock.

Schiffs position on Iran has made me question the rest of his understanding of the constition despite what he says. he seems to have a real lack of understanding on foreign policy. My point about, foreign aid in the constitution was to highlight the point that people can believe they are following the constitution when they are not by you or my standards. I can understand how didn't come across that way.

[KAYA]

I donated to Schiff multipule time and will continue to do so. Schiff for Senate baby!!!

[Ricky201]

Schiff's campaign is ultimately dead due to this issue and those whom have decided to derail him because of it. Good luck with your other choices in CT and thanks for killing another campaign.

[low preference guy]

Ricky201, no campaign was killed. If you pay attention, you'll see that it's usually the same people who write over and over against Schiff. His primary is in August, and after Rand's primary is over, in May, expect to see the focus of the movement to shift to Connecticut.

The majority still supports Schiff, just like the majority didn't abandon Rand after the Guantanamo comments.

[Che]

i liked the old days..

[Liberty Star]

CFL is getting torn to shreds for supporting a candidate that supports the afgan war yet schiff supports a preemptive war on Iran??

I think some people need to do some soul searching.

ok, searching.



Some people had jumped to conclusion. While some questions like ones quoted below are unanswered so far, lets wait for publication of his official foreign policy stances before people placing labels.





Does anyone here know:

-What is Peter Schiff's view on Israel-Palestine issue and US aid to Israel/Arabs?

- What is his view on taxpayer funded invasion of foreign coyntries like Iran, Israel if they do not allow UN inspectors in?

These questions have come up indirectly in other discussions but have not been able to find a clear answer.



This is current membership of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, they likely have more say in US FP today than even Obama:

Chair:
JF Kerry
Ranking Member:
Richard Lugar

Committee Members

Majority
Christopher J. Dodd
Russell D. Feingold
Barbara Boxer
..


FP is an important issue for all Comgress members but a particularly important issue for prospective Senators.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2495011&postcount=6

[Knightskye]

God damn, I hadn't seen that video of Schiff.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I'm not going to war for some bureaucrats/chickenhawks.

[Liberty_Tree]

No more support from me either.

[qwerty]

OMG!

Fanatics are here again.

People WAKE UP! There are people here you are just SABOTAGING our movement when we have chance to get people elected.

:rolleyes:

[pacelli]

Iran already is not I threat. I've been over this a dozen time on this forum already. Maybe this should be made a sticky.

1) Iran was part of the U.S. led coalition that drove out the Taliban
2) Iran tried to give us Al Qaeda suspects in exchange for Islamo-Maxist terrorists we support who attack Iran. Iran's offer was refused.
3) Iran offered the "grand bargain" to Bush where they would have given up supporting Hezbollah and Hamas and even their peaceful nuke program in exchange for security guarantees.
4) Iran does not supply its own energy because it has no refineries. Nuclear power would give them the energy independence they crave.

Iran wants to survive. If we threaten their survival by attacking them may feel they have no choice but to retaliate.

I don't know how in the hell people neglect the fact that Iran is not a threat to the United States.

[libertybrewcity]

i still support peter schiff for senate. he is incredibly bright with economics and fiscal issues and would definitely serve the country well. Iran is such a menial issue that he would surely deal with when the time comes. i really don't think it is something that people should withdraw their support over. If he doesn't support attacking iraq and afghanistan, why would he support attacking iran? out of all the candidates in senate and house, i would rather see peter schiff than either rand or kokesh to be honest. peter schiff debating against bernanke and the dems and even repubs? i mean what is better than that. he would get his message across and actually make some change.

[Fr3shjive]

i still support peter schiff for senate. he is incredibly bright with economics and fiscal issues and would definitely serve the country well. Iran is such a menial issue that he would surely deal with when the time comes. i really don't think it is something that people should withdraw their support over. If he doesn't support attacking iraq and afghanistan, why would he support attacking iran?

+1

My biggest concern is occupying other nations, which he says he doesnt support. He was also talking to neo-conish type guy so I think he might have been saying some of those things to please him.

I've heard him say that he wants to stop the empire building that we've been engaging in because its a drain on our economy. Although I may not agree with Schiff 100% on his foreign policy I agree with him on 99% of all of the other issues. Its not enough for me to withdraw support.

My 3 requirements for a candidate:
1. Fiscally responsible
2. Doesnt believe in building an empire.
3. Doesnt want occupy foreign nations.

He fits those enough for me to support him. He's a little more pro-war than I'd like but its still not enough for me to withdraw my support.

[Meatwasp]

Schiff's campaign is ultimately dead due to this issue and those whom have decided to derail him because of it. Good luck with your other choices in CT and thanks for killing another campaign.

I don't think he is being derailed. If he wants to bomb over there for any reason he is still wrong. Why is an anti forum for this. Ron Paul wouldn't be.

[Meatwasp]

maybe with all this attention he will come and clarify his statements and ease our minds. I like everything else he stands for.

[qwerty]

You can´t say that you are for freedom if you are not for self-defense.

That´s what Peter is for, self-defense.

[Meatwasp]

I am for self defence. So don't put that handle on me. Do you think Iran would attack us with all our power? I think not.They knew what happened in Iraq.

[Eric21ND]

Ricky201, no campaign was killed. If you pay attention, you'll see that it's usually the same people who write over and over against Schiff. His primary is in August, and after Rand's primary is over, in May, expect to see the focus of the movement to shift to Connecticut.

The majority still supports Schiff, just like the majority didn't abandon Rand after the Guantanamo comments.
This is true. Some less politically savvy members here forget we're still trying to win the GOP nomination. Rand and Peter will parse their words a bit to get the honor of running in the general.

You don't have to agree with someone 100% to support them 100%...case in point me personally holding a pro-choice view, yet donating time and money to Ron's campaign. I don't know how any member of these forums could not see that Rand or Peter would significantly move the football of liberty down the field. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot by not supporting these guys. I think them winning would pave the way for even better candidates in the future.

[andrewh817]

This is the basic problem with government solutions for freedom. You end up sacrificing any morality to gain support from those within the system.

[klamath]

+1

My biggest concern is occupying other nations, which he says he doesnt support. He was also talking to neo-conish type guy so I think he might have been saying some of those things to please him.

I've heard him say that he wants to stop the empire building that we've been engaging in because its a drain on our economy. Although I may not agree with Schiff 100% on his foreign policy I agree with him on 99% of all of the other issues. Its not enough for me to withdraw support.

My 3 requirements for a candidate:
1. Fiscally responsible
2. Doesnt believe in building an empire.
3. Doesnt want occupy foreign nations.

He fits those enough for me to support him. He's a little more pro-war than I'd like but its still not enough for me to withdraw my support.

Schiff did not just say this once. He said it twice that I know of. It wasn't just some off the cuff remark.

[nobody's_hero]

This is the basic problem with government solutions for freedom. You end up sacrificing any morality to gain support from those within the system.

Well, I say Schiff needs to sacrifice as much morality as necessary to get into office, and then do a complete 180 when he gets into office and start being moral again.

Let's consider this scenario:

You lie to a bunch of neocons and tell them that you have wet-dreams about invading Iran and killing every rag-head baby you can find. They are easily seduced by your pro-war rhetoric and practically shower you with votes. Then you get into office and suddenly pull all of our troops out of the Middle East. Neocons will scream out "OMG, what have you done! We're doomed"—but other than that, when was the last time people actually did something substantial when the politicians in office disappointed them?

The establishment typically lies about supporting freedom in order to get into office, and then betraying the voters when they get into office.

Perhaps we should lie about supporting tyranny in order to get into office, and then betray the establishment once our candidates are in there.

What have we got to lose? :D

EDIT: This plan probably wouldn't actually work, but it is kind of funny to think of.

[jmdrake]

OMG!

Fanatics are here again.

People WAKE UP! There are people here you are just SABOTAGING our movement when we have chance to get people elected.


:rolleyes: Even the most ardent Schiff supporters will admit he has less than a long shot of getting elected especially after Dodd dropped out. That said I wish him well.



You can´t say that you are for freedom if you are not for self-defense.

That´s what Peter is for, self-defense.

Bombing a country that hasn't attacked us or threatened us simply because of some supposed "intelligence" of WMDs is NOT SELF DEFENSE! If that is "self defense" then the Iraq war was justified and Ron Paul is wrong and there's no point for this entire movement. Sorry. I'm not going against the just war theory that brought me to Ron Paul just because you're worried about it hurting Schiff. Besides, if Schiff's biggest problem is needing to appeal to neocon voters than maybe criticism from people like me will actually help his campaign. Quit trying to have it both ways.

[qwerty]

Bombing a country that hasn't attacked us or threatened us simply because of some supposed "intelligence" of WMDs is NOT SELF DEFENSE! If that is "self defense" then the Iraq war was justified and Ron Paul is wrong and there's no point for this entire movement. Sorry. I'm not going against the just war theory that brought me to Ron Paul just because you're worried about it hurting Schiff. Besides, if Schiff's biggest problem is needing to appeal to neocon voters than maybe criticism from people like me will actually help his campaign. Quit trying to have it both ways.

Iraq war wasn´t justified, cause there were not real intelligence about it. There wasn´t, EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT. So why are you comparing that to the Peter Schiff´s statement ?

Ron Paul on Intelligence,

Starts at 5.20

YouTube - Glenn Beck Radio: Ron Paul explains what he meant by CIA Coup (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMsJPv1sFM4)

[Knightskye]

You can´t say that you are for freedom if you are not for self-defense.

That´s what Peter is for, self-defense.

"If they don't let our inspectors in, blow the place up."

Is that what you stand for?

[jmdrake]

Iraq war wasn´t justified, cause there were not real intelligence about it. There wasn´t, EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT. So why are you comparing that to the Peter Schiff´s statement ?


Everybody knows that now. Many weren't sure back before the war. Even Ron Paul didn't discount the possibility of WMDs in Iraq. The comparison is justified.



Ron Paul on Intelligence,


Starts at 5.20

YouTube - Glenn Beck Radio: Ron Paul explains what he meant by CIA Coup (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMsJPv1sFM4)

Ummmm....your point? Yes Ron Paul agrees with intelligence gathering. I didn't hear in that clip anywhere that he endorsed bombing a country that hadn't attacked or even threatened us based on that intelligence.

[dannno]

I am for self defence. So don't put that handle on me. Do you think Iran would attack us with all our power? I think not.They knew what happened in Iraq.

Good, so you agree Peter Schiff would never attack Iran because they aren't a threat. I'm glad we both agree.

Again, Peter Schiff was talking about a hypothetical situation.

[dannno]

Schiff did not just say this once. He said it twice that I know of. It wasn't just some off the cuff remark.

Say what once? That he wanted to continue the US empire? That he wanted to occupy other nations? That's what the post you quoted was talking about, none of which Peter Schiff has EVER said he wanted to do. Supporting a single military action in a hypothetical situation based on a perceived threat in self defense is 100% on the opposite end of the spectrum compared to occupying and building an empire.

[dannno]

I didn't hear in that clip anywhere that he endorsed bombing a country that hadn't attacked or even threatened us based on that intelligence.

You've been following Peter for a while and are fairly familiar with how he thinks, right?

Don't you think that if bombing Iran came up for a vote in the Senate that he would take this issue a little more seriously, look into this perceived threat to ensure that it is real? Maybe talk to Ron Paul and get his opinion on the issue? I mean, you've heard his speeches about how the military is part of the government and he doesn't think that they are any more competent than any other government organization, so why would he depend solely on the intelligence and advice of a GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION to make this important decision??

I'm not making up a bunch of stuff to keep a candidate who I've invested a lot of time and money in afloat, I am saying this because I actually believe Peter Schiff is a VERY reasonable individual when it comes down to it and I have an idea how the guy thinks.

Don't you think all of us supporters would see the bill coming down the line and bomb schiff with e-mails and letters and faxes and ensure he votes the correct way?

I just see Schiff making the decision to vote for some legislation that caused us to actually bomb an Iranian nuke facility as .0000001%... and in that .0000001% scenario, I believe there is a 50% chance it could actually be justified (this is coming from an Ahmadinijad apologist..)

[dannno]

Is there anybody here who receive(s/d) Peter Schiff's multi-weekly video blog and watched them whenever they came out, watched all of his appearances in the media, watched all of his Republican Town Hall meetings, and are now not supporting him?

I have a gut feeling that quite a few people who have dropped support and are speaking out never really knew him that well in the first place, it's just a theory though. I'm sure there may be a couple anomalies, but ya never know.

[klamath]

Peter Schiff is not a neocon. Peter Schiff is a strong defence Conservative. Though I totally disagree with his stand on this I believe he thinks this is necessary for the defence of the country like many other republicans. Anyone that believes Schiff is just saying this to get elected or that Schiff's stand is not in contrast to non interventionism are absolutely deluding themselves. You just have to take what he says and determine if it is within your principles and whether you can live with it.
This and his abortion stand keep me from actively sending money or campaigning for him but if I was in CT I would vote for him.

The point of this thread was not to attack Schiff but to show that Non interventionism and non preemptive war are not the holy grail of all the planks of the movement as some try to say. Some can live with it some cannot. RP shows he can live with violations of this plank in other candidates and will support them but personally he stands by non interventionist non preemptive war.
I am asking the Mods to lock this thread though as it appears not to have awakened people to the hypocracy and only harms Schiff and causes more division.

[JoshLowry]

Closed at request of OP.