Issue: Foreign Policy: Sudan: What has Ron Paul said?

[maiki]

Preface: I don't support going to war with Sudan or any other country, for that matter.

I heard somewhere that Ron Paul was given a low score regarding helping Sudan/Darfur, and I wanted to see what he had said on the matter.

What courses of help would Ron Paul support for these sorts of situations? The only thing he voted in favor of was humanitarian aid to Sudan, and I can see how the wording in a lot of the bills can give the govt. too much power or collaborates with the UN, but what sorts of things would he propose instead?

I hope I'm making sense with my question. :/ I think some anti-war folks also wonder what ways we can help others without infiltrating other countries.

thanks!

[ThePieSwindler]

He basically said that he supports voluntary peace coalitions, but believes sending actual US military over there to get involved would be forcing the taxpayers to pay for another conflict. He believes he does not have the right to force the taxpayers to pay for intervention in another conflict, even one with benign intentions.

[austinphish]

I think the Darfur issue will be another political liability for Paul. He is so darn principled that it creates problems with the average American. See Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts.

[Seer]

He could spin his opposition against it and the Dems support for it, by reminding the American people that our military is tired right now and that Sudan could be the next Iraq.

[wecandoit]

Not sure if it's true, but I read somewhere that the only 3 countries left in the world not tied into the world banking system were North Korea..Iran and Sudan.

just FYI

[Revolution9]

Not sure if it's true, but I read somewhere that the only 3 countries left in the world not tied into the world banking system were North Korea..Iran and Sudan.

just FYI

Specifically..they do not have a Rothschild owned Central Bank. There were previously four.. With Iraq down it is three to go..

With the patriarch pushing up daisies there is likely to be a shakeup in world banking affairs. Alot of the younger generation of Rothschilds are not on board with the elders gambits. Typically generation gap stuff..:)

Best
Randy

[maiki]

Huh? what is this about banking?

[maiki]

I think the Darfur issue will be another political liability for Paul. He is so darn principled that it creates problems with the average American.

To an extent I agree. If he is advocating a policy of non-interventionism, there needs to be some way the US can still help when atrocities get committed that does not involve war. I think people don't like feeling like they are helpless.

[mikelovesgod]

Sudan is nothing compared to the atrocities of the Congo which never are published in any MSM. Sudan's deaths are horrible, but the Congo has had 20 times more murder than the Sudan.

[maiki]

They are all bad, Mike. I just wish there could be concrete things the government could do without sending troops. :( Using our dollar and our voice to make sure corporations don't do trade with those countries is one thing, and maybe it is all we can licitly do in addition to prayer.

[KingTheoden]

Huh? what is this about banking?

Throughout history, particularly in recent times, nations that do not conform to IMF and World Bank rules and refuse to adopt them have a knack for being listed as 'rogue states.' In my view, often these nations are not exactly pro-freedom, but do uphold the concept of sovereignty. When a nation joins the 'world community' it usually means that they hand over power of currency production to elite banking houses. For more information, I would refer you to Aaron Russo's documentary, Freedom to Fascism.

We have to be careful about wanting to involve ourselves in conflicts around the world. If we are to believe that the government is horribly corrupt in Iraq, how is it logical to advocate intervention in Sudan? Would it not be entirely foreseeable that this same government would pillage that nation, loot our taxpayers in the name of 'war,' and leave tens of thousands of our troops to case a phantom enemy.

[CJLauderdale4]

Not that this is the answer, and not that I'm advocating this as a solution, but historically we used to send missionaries to war-torn countries with a different message...

Food for thought...

[beermotor]

To an extent I agree. If he is advocating a policy of non-interventionism, there needs to be some way the US can still help when atrocities get committed that does not involve war. I think people don't like feeling like they are helpless.

It's called AU - help them, or force them, to do their damned job. We subsidize a lot of the crap that goes on in Africa, it's really sad. Turn off that spigot and force them to grow up.

[Captain Shays]

Throughout history, particularly in recent times, nations that do not conform to IMF and World Bank rules and refuse to adopt them have a knack for being listed as 'rogue states.' In my view, often these nations are not exactly pro-freedom, but do uphold the concept of sovereignty. When a nation joins the 'world community' it usually means that they hand over power of currency production to elite banking houses. For more information, I would refer you to Aaron Russo's documentary, Freedom to Fascism.

We have to be careful about wanting to involve ourselves in conflicts around the world. If we are to believe that the government is horribly corrupt in Iraq, how is it logical to advocate intervention in Sudan? Would it not be entirely foreseeable that this same government would pillage that nation, loot our taxpayers in the name of 'war,' and leave tens of thousands of our troops to case a phantom enemy.

(Captain Shays) It has happened many times before. Just look at whats been going on in Palestine. We the taxpayers sent them money to build a school and then,they named it after a female suicide bomber.

And I would rather put fear of involvment in people by saying that it could be another Somolia, than another Iraq. Which is could.

So what is the answer? I don't know.

[Nefertiti]

Ron Paul on Sudan:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul195.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul219.html

http://www.darfurscores.org/ron-paul?download=y

A comment on that last one, although he gets an "F" I think he is spot on with his votes. Sudan is a very poor country and economic sanctions are not the way to go. Voting for aid is the right thing. Our politicians want us to be confused into believing that what is going on in Darfur is somehow a race thing between "Arabs" and "blacks"-everyone in Sudan is black and everyone in Darfur is Muslim. The confusion is exemplified by this post criticizing Ron Paul for his vote on John Garang:

http://digg.com/politics/Republican_Representative_votes_AGAINST_commitment _to_peace_in_Darfur

John Garang was the rebel leader in the south (which is Christian and animist). He has no connection with Darfur, which is in the west. We need to watch out for the conflation of these two independent and separate conflicts in Sudan and not let confusion guide our policy.

The only person who seems to see what is really going on is Ban-ki Moon:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56229

Sanctions on Sudan are incredibly dangerous. Sudan has a referendum coming up in a few years on Southern Sudan's independence from the North (note-Darfur is part of the north although it actually is in the west of the country). Suffering sanctions would push the south to be more likely to secede because certainly if they were to do so, the countries placing the sanctions on Sudan would not apply them to an independent south. Why is this a bad thing? Water. Southern Sudan would control the Nile,which provides Northern Sudan and Egypt with its sole source of water., and they could stop the flow if they wanted or certainly start a war with Egypt if they tried This means it is a life or death issue for nearly 100 million. A continued north-south coalition comprising Muslims, Christians and animists in the Sudan is the only way to preserve the life-giving waters for everyone.

[dspectre]

I retract my statement because I don't know the situation in Sudan very well....

However, my general sentiment is that I'm tired of the U.S. policing the world...