Justin Amash votes to condemn Russia for its incursion into Ukraine

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

Justin Amash has now consistently shown he's no non-interventionist when it comes to foreign policy. Is it because he has an establishment primary challenge? Is he selling out his principles to cozy up to the establishment? Or does he genuinely believe what he's voting for?

Either way, it's quite disappointing.

Meanwhile, Thomas Massie has shown that he is the one consistent supporter of non-interventionism, even standing out as the lone opponent of a recent bill that called for "strengthening the U.S. - Israel alliance."

7 nay votes, Amash not one of them.

NAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 117
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)

H RES 499 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 11-Mar-2014 7:11 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended
BILL TITLE: Condemning the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity by military forces of the Russian Federation

YEAS NAYS PRES NV
REPUBLICAN 218 5 1 7
DEMOCRATIC 184 2 13
INDEPENDENT
TOTALS 402 7 1 20

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll117.xml

The 7 nay votes:

Jimmy Duncan (R) TN (member of Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity)
Alcee Hastings (D) FL
Walter Jones (R) NC (member of Ron Paul Institute)
Thomas Massie (R) KY (next Ron Paul?)
Gwen Moore (D) WY
Steve Stockman (R) TX
Ted Yoho (R) FL

[tsai3904]

This is how he explained a recent resolution expressing disapproval of violence in Venezuela:


I voted yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass ‪#‎HRes488‬, which expresses the support of the House for the democratic aspirations of the people of Venezuela and urges involved parties to seek a peaceful resolution to the crisis there. The United States should not insert itself into the conflict in Venezuela, but I'm comfortable with this nonbinding resolution expressing disapproval of the use of violence and intimidation. The resolution passed 393-1.

https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/680801445292598

[nobody's_hero]

I really just don't think our government has the credibility to be talking smack to others about violating sovereignty.

[Rudeman]

I really just don't think our government has the credibility to be talking smack to others about violating sovereignty.

Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't make it wrong. I don't see a problem with condemning someone for their actions, just because you support non-intervention doesn't mean you need to sit silently and ignore issues.

[erowe1]

Here's the text of the resolution:

Summary: H.Res.499 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

There is one summary for this bill. Bill summaries are authored by CRS.
Shown Here:
Introduced in House (03/05/2014)

Condemns Russia's military violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity.

States that Russia's military intervention: (1) is in breach of its United Nations (U.N.) obligations, and of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in which it pledged to respect Ukraine's independence and existing borders; and (2) poses a threat to international peace and security.

Calls on Russia to remove its military forces from Ukraine's Crimean peninsula, other than those operating in accordance with its 1997 agreement on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet Stationing on the Territory of Ukraine, and to refrain from interference in all regions of Ukraine.

Declares that the Ukrainian people have the right to determine their own future free from outside interference.

Commends the Ukrainian government for its restraint and avoidance of military provocations.

Calls on the Ukrainian government to continue to protect the rights of minority populations within Ukraine.

Calls for the deployment of independent monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in Crimea and other areas of Ukraine.

Calls upon the President and the leaders of the other democratic states to not attend the G8 summit in Sochi, Russia, and to consider expelling Russia from the group.

Calls on the Administration to work with our European allies and other countries to impose visa, financial, trade, and other sanctions on senior Russian officials and on appropriate Russian entities.

States that the United States should participate with its European allies and other countries to provide the Ukrainian government with financial, economic, and technical assistance.

Calls on the United States, its European allies, and other countries and international organizations to provide assistance to ensure that new elections scheduled for May 2014 are free and in full accordance with international standards.

Supports Ukrainian efforts to achieve energy independence.

Affirms the right of all countries in the region to exercise their sovereign rights within their internationally recognized borders free from outside intervention and to conduct their foreign policy in accordance with their determination of the best interests of their peoples.
http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/499?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hres499%22%5D%7D

I don't like it.

[lib3rtarian]

People need to stop calling Rand, Amash etc. neocons just because they express disapproval over Russia's actions in Ukraine. As long as the US doesn't get dragged into a war and spend blood and money, I am OK with resolutions and sanctions.

[MichaelDavis]

Russia invaded another country without reason. If I were you, I would be criticizing the seven nay votes. This is not an interventionist vs non-interventionist issue. It's not like Amash voted to send money or weapons to Ukraine. Good job, Justin.

[jclay2]

People need to stop calling Rand, Amash etc. neocons just because they express disapproval over Russia's actions in Ukraine. As long as the US doesn't get dragged into a war and spend blood and money, I am OK with resolutions and sanctions.

Sanctions are always the lead up to war. You are an absolute fool if you think economic sanctions are not acts of war. Look at the lovely response we got from the japanese.

[erowe1]

People need to stop calling Rand, Amash etc. neocons just because they express disapproval over Russia's actions in Ukraine. As long as the US doesn't get dragged into a war and spend blood and money, I am OK with resolutions and sanctions.

He didn't just express disapproval of Russia's actions.

He also called for the US to give them financial aid among other things.

Why are you ok with sanctions?

[erowe1]

Russia invaded another country without reason.

If Ukraine continued to subjugate the people of Crimea with its own government and its own military without their consent, would that be less bad than anything Russia did? You use the word "invaded." But I don't see why it makes a difference if the troops are from the regime in Moscow or the regime based in Kiev.


It's not like Amash voted to send money or weapons to Ukraine.

He did vote for a resolution that called for doing that.

States that the United States should participate with its European allies and other countries to provide the Ukrainian government with financial, economic, and technical assistance.

[dannno]

Russia invaded another country without reason.

Or they were simply protecting the Ukranian population against western intervention and the media tricked you into believing there is no western intervention in Ukraine.

[Snew]

I really just don't think our government has the credibility to be talking smack to others about violating sovereignty.
Yup

[pcosmar]

Russia invaded another country without reason.

NO. They did not.
That is the propaganda angle from the folks that engineered the violent overthrow of the Government of Ukraine.

Russia had bases and assets in Crimea. They have good cause to secure those assets. And they were also invited by the locals WHO WERE RIGHTFULLY CONCERNED WITH THE ANTI-RUSSIAN HOSTILES THAT THAT TAKEN OVER UKRAINE.
The people of Crimea will vote on the matter,, but no shots have been fired.. No Hostilities. Russia is providing security for their own assets and against the threat of the Fascists that have taken over.

Sorry,, but my observation is that Russia is doing the right thing here.

I believe that this was targeted at Russia in retaliation for it's diplomacy in preventing escalation in Syria. And for negotiating a deal with Iran.

[compromise]

Justin Amash has now consistently shown he's no non-interventionist when it comes to foreign policy. Is it because he has an establishment primary challenge? Is he selling out his principles to cozy up to the establishment? Or does he genuinely believe what he's voting for?

Either way, it's quite disappointing.

Meanwhile, Thomas Massie has shown that he is the one consistent supporter of non-interventionism, even standing out as the lone opponent of a recent bill that called for "strengthening the U.S. - Israel alliance."

7 nay votes, Amash not one of them.

NAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 117
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)

H RES 499 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 11-Mar-2014 7:11 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended
BILL TITLE: Condemning the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity by military forces of the Russian Federation

YEAS NAYS PRES NV
REPUBLICAN 218 5 1 7
DEMOCRATIC 184 2 13
INDEPENDENT
TOTALS 402 7 1 20

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll117.xml

The 7 nay votes:

Jimmy Duncan (R) TN (member of Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity)
Alcee Hastings (D) FL
Walter Jones (R) NC (member of Ron Paul Institute)
Thomas Massie (R) KY (next Ron Paul?)
Gwen Moore (D) WY
Steve Stockman (R) TX
Ted Yoho (R) FL
How exactly does a statement constitute as intervention?

[WM_in_MO]

The United States should not insert itself into the conflict in Venezuela, but I'm comfortable with this nonbinding resolution expressing disapproval of the use of violence and intimidation.

OP is making demons where there are none.

[TaftFan]

Once again, if people are getting disappointed over issues like this, I believe there is a strong isolationist segment in this movement. And yes, I know it is different from non-interventionism (and also protectionism).

[dannno]

Once again, if people are getting disappointed over issues like this, I believe there is a strong isolationist segment in this movement. And yes, I know it is different from non-interventionism (and also protectionism).

Have you read the content of this thread at all? Please read pcosmar's post... Many of us realize that the Ukranian government are a bunch of extremists who were funded and installed by western governments and interests and that Russia is simply coming in to protect the people of Ukraine and the infrastructure that belongs to them. Our media is distorting what is really happening to make Russia look like the enemy. Why should Russia be condemned at all? Why on earth should they be sanctioned as the Act calls for?

The people who see what kind of influence we are having in Ukraine as it is and actually understand what this conflict is about rather than regurgitating mainstream propaganda are the ones who are truly non-interventionist.

[Natural Citizen]

Have you read the content of this thread at all? Please read pcosmar's post... Many of us realize that the Ukranian government are a bunch of extremists who were funded and installed by western governments and interests and that Russia is simply coming in to protect the people of Ukraine and the infrastructure that belongs to them. Our media is distorting what is really happening to make Russia look like the enemy. Why should Russia be condemned at all? Why on earth should they be sanctioned as the Act calls for?

The people who see what kind of influence we are having in Ukraine as it is are the ones who are truly non-interventionist.

I'm really kind of surprised that so many here are just going with the narrative that is being run by some of these political ones and corporate media. Of course, as I had mentioned when this thing first broke out, we'll get to see who is who as far as the so called liberty movement goes.

What really baffled me was that when the reality of the situation was brought up that it was moved to hot topics. I found this to be disturbing in a few ways and conforming to the malfeasance that we are seeing from media and those representatives who seem to be playing along. But whatever.

[TaftFan]

Have you read the content of this thread at all? Please read pcosmar's post... Many of us realize that the Ukranian government are a bunch of extremists who were funded and installed by western governments and interests and that Russia is simply coming in to protect the people of Ukraine and the infrastructure that belongs to them. Our media is distorting what is really happening to make Russia look like the enemy. Why should Russia be condemned at all? Why on earth should they be sanctioned as the Act calls for?

The people who see what kind of influence we are having in Ukraine as it is and actually understand what this conflict is about rather than regurgitating mainstream propaganda are the ones who are truly non-interventionist.

I recognize that Ukraine is in the middle of a tug of war between EU and Russian interests. And for that reason, I want each region to vote on whether to be Ukrainian (which would fall under the EU/US sphere of influence), Russia, or whether to become independent.

If the U.S. claimed we were entering a country to protect it's people and interests, RPF would be in uproar.

I support Russia defending it's interests. I'm not sure it handled it in the correct manner.

[TaftFan]

I'm really kind of surprised that so many here are just going with the narrative that is being run by some of these political ones and corporate media. Of course, as I had mentioned when this thing first broke out, we'll get to see who is who as far as the so called liberty movement goes.

What really baffled me was that when the reality of the situation was brought up that it was moved to hot topics. I found this to be disturbing in a few ways and conforming to the malfeasance that we are seeing from media and those representatives who seem to be playing along. But whatever.

I am not going along with any "narrative." I have thought out this situation on my own.

[erowe1]

How exactly does a statement constitute as intervention?

It doesn't.

But it does constitute a statement about what Amash supports, which in this case is a statement supporting intervention.

[tsai3904]

But it does constitute a statement about what Amash supports, which in this case is a statement supporting intervention.

I'm sure he agrees with some parts and disagrees with some parts. If a bill came to the House floor only calling for sending money to Ukraine, is there any doubt how Justin would vote?

[erowe1]

I'm sure he agrees with some parts and disagrees with some parts. If a bill came to the House floor only calling for sending money to Ukraine, is there any doubt how Justin would vote?

I'm sure you're right. But by voting for it, he's making a statement that he agrees with it.

He's voted against other resolutions like this in the past.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Glad I never sent any money to Amash.

If I ever do send money to a politician, it looks like it'll be Massie.

[tsai3904]

I'm sure you're right. But by voting for it, he's making a statement that he agrees with it.

He's voted against other resolutions like this in the past.

He agrees with what? Intervention? Not every line in the resolution called for intervention.

[erowe1]

He agrees with what? Intervention? Not every line in the resolution called for intervention.

Agrees with the resolution that he voted for.

The one that calls for intervention.

[tsai3904]

Agrees with the resolution that he voted for.

The one that calls for intervention.

Again, I'm sure there are some parts that he likes and some parts that he dislikes. Are you inferring that a vote for a bill means you agree with everything?

[erowe1]

Again, I'm sure there are some parts that he likes and some parts that he dislikes. Are you inferring that a vote for a bill means you agree with everything?

I'm implying that by voting for this resolution, which calls for intervention, Amash is saying that he agrees with the resolution.

And if we're to pick out some parts to be the basis of voting for or against it, over other parts, then the parts that we should care about are the ones that call for action from our Congress.

[dannno]

He agrees with what? Intervention? Not every line in the resolution called for intervention.

I think the idea is if there's a bill that says "Sugar, candycanes, lollipops, stuffed animals, puppies and kittens. Death to the infidels!" then just because you agree with sugar, candycanes, lollipops, stuffed animals, puppies and kittens doesn't mean you should vote for "Death to the infidels!"

Sort of like if you don't agree with parts of The Patriot Act and you don't support it then I guess they figure you aren't patriotic just because of the title?

[69360]

It's a sense of congress. It does nothing and authorizes nothing.

[tsai3904]

I'm implying that by voting for this resolution, which calls for intervention, Amash is saying that he agrees with the resolution.

And if we're to pick out some parts to be the basis of voting for or against it, over other parts, then the parts that we should care about are the ones that call for action from our Congress.

There was a bill that lowered trade restrictions with Russia while also applying some sanctions that Amash voted for. He explained that he supported lowering tariffs while opposed the sanctions. In this particular vote, does this mean Amash supports intervention given his explanation?


I voted "yes" on H R 6156, Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012. The bill combines two separate bills.

The first bill removes the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which restricts trade with Russia. The amendment was intended to penalize Soviet countries that limited the ability of Jews to emigrate. The administration can waive Jackson-Vanik's restrictions if it certifies that the target countries have stopped their abuses. Administrations have waived the amendment since the 1990s.

Russia finally joined the WTO in August. Russia's accession was contingent on the country lowering trade barriers and tariffs to other countries' goods and services. Every other country in the WTO, including the U.S., must give Russia "permanent normal trade relations" (PNTR), formerly known as "most favored nation" status. Even though it is routinely waived, Jackson-Vanik violates PNTR. If the U.S. does not repeal Jackson-Vanik, Russia does not have to lower its trade barriers to our country's goods and services.

The trade portion of H R 6156 also extends PNTR to Moldova.

The second bill combined in H R 6156 concerns the death of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer who alleged powerful interests had stolen billions of dollars from the Russian government. Magnitsky was imprisoned without a trial for a year before he was beaten to death by prison guards. The bill requires the administration to freeze the assets of and to deny entrance to the U.S. to persons responsible for Magnitsky's death.

I favor lowering trade barriers between the U.S. and Russia. Tariffs and trade barriers limit economic freedom and make us poorer. The human rights portion of the bill is not ideal. It's ironic that our government would criticize the judicial process of another country through a sanctions process that requires our own government to make factual and legal determinations about a murder that happened thousands of miles away. However, the bill replaces broad and relatively severe sanctions in the Jackson-Vanik amendment with narrower sanctions aimed at an abuse that recently occurred (as opposed to sanctioning an abuse that largely ceased decades ago). On balance, the bill moves us in the direction of economic freedom and a restrained foreign policy.

It passed 365-43.

[ctiger2]

http://rt.com/news/russian-troops-crimea-ukraine-816/

The Facts:

1) A Russian naval presence in Crimea dates to 1783 when the port city of Sevastopol was founded by Russian Prince Grigory Potemkin. Crimea was part of Russia until Nikita Khruschev gave it to Ukraine in 1954.

2) In 1997, amid the wreckage of the USSR, Russia & Ukraine signed a Partition Treaty determining the fate of the military bases and vessels in Crimea. The deal sparked widespread officer ‘defections’ to Russia and was ratified by the Russian & Ukrainian parliaments in 1999. Russia received 81.7 percent of the fleet’s ships after paying the Ukrainian government US$526.5 million.

3) The deal allowed the Russian Black Sea Fleet to stay in Crimea until 2017. This was extended by another 25 years to 2042 with a 5-year extension option in 2010.

4) Moscow annually writes off $97.75 million of Kiev’s debt for the right to use Ukrainian waters and radio frequencies, and to compensate for the Black Sea Fleet’s environmental impact.

5) The Russian navy is allowed up to

- 25,000 troops,

- 24 artillery systems with a caliber smaller than 100 mm,

- 132 armored vehicles, and

- 22 military planes, on Crimean territory.

and more... http://rt.com/news/russian-troops-crimea-ukraine-816/

[phill4paul]

A bill that imposes sanctions and gives financial aid? No thanks. One is an act of war the other is theft.

[nobody's_hero]

If these types of 'non-binding' resolutions didn't have such a shitty track-record of snowballing into some sort of armed confrontation, I'd grant that they'd be nothing to worry about.

But, again, this is the U.S. gov't we're talking about. 'Non-binding' resolutions is a way to tell everyone that we're loading magazines.

Ultimately, if it isn't so serious that the situation demands troop deployments (in other words, an immediate threat to American lives requiring American troops), we need to stay the f* out of it. Otherwise someone down the line is gonna try to call the bluff, and we've seen what usually happens when a politician's ego is threatened. Someone at some point has started running his mouth and now either has to send Americans to die merely to avoid embarrassment, or back down and risk ridicule from the hawks. Now if he'd just kept his mouth shut to begin with . . .

[dannno]

Obviously I am against the resolution, but like Rand in many cases I just hope Amash is making in-roads and am fairly confident that he will make the right decision when it really counts.

Although you also have to respect Massie and Ron Paul for sticking to their guns on issues like this, we need both types of leaders in congress.

[tsai3904]

If these types of 'non-binding' resolutions didn't have such a shitty track-record of snowballing into some sort of armed confrontation, I'd grant that they'd be nothing to worry about.

But, again, this is the U.S. gov't we're talking about. 'Non-binding' resolutions is a way to tell everyone that we're loading magazines.

Agreed that these non-binding resolutions are used to justify interventions. I wish Justin didn't vote for this and hope people can make him change his mind like they did with the Israel bill awhile ago.

[pcosmar]

I just hope Amash is making in-roads

What if the in road is a Dead End, in a really bad neighborhood?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Sanctions are always the lead up to war. You are an absolute fool if you think economic sanctions are not acts of war. Look at the lovely response we got from the japanese.

This is the kind of statement that neoconservatives can use to further themselves so much. Nothing the United States did justified what Japan did. Why do people seem to put the U.S. on a different moral plane than other nations? No one here would attempt to excuse the U.S. bombing another country because they slapped some form of sanctions on us, so why even write stuff that gives off even the faintest hint of making an excuse for Japan (or anyone else) bombing another country because of sanctions?

Furthermore, I'd go so far as to say that the sanctions against Japan were good. Why shouldn't a country sanction another that's on the warpath, as Imperial Japan was at the time? Is it morally right to give oil to a country in need of it that is doing what Japan was in 1941?

[charrob]

As long as the US doesn't get dragged into a war and spend blood and money, I am OK with resolutions and sanctions.

The U.S. taxpayer paid $5 billion dollars to orchestrate the coup of a democratically elected government. Yanukovych was corrupt, but how many of our politicians are not corrupt? The Ukrainian Constitution has laws to impeach a president. The U.S.-backed and financed coup wanted no part in the rule of law; if we did we would have insisted on proper impeachment proceedings. Instead we were pushing for the coup and funding protesters.

Most U.S. wars by far are dirty wars orchestrated by the CIA, U.S. embassies, and NGOs. In Latin America there is a common joke that the reason the U.S. Government has never been overthrown is because there's no U.S. embassy here. That's why Bolivia threw out USAID.

Russia's military base on the Crimea was established by Catherine the Great during the times Czars ruled Russia (before the Soviet Union was established). There was a 45 year agreement between Ukraine and Russia to keep that base. And by far the largest number of people in Crimea are ethnic Russians. Since the 1990s the U.S. has been pushing to expand NATO and sure enough the hawks got their way, so missiles are now pointed at Russia from the Baltic countries, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. And under Obama we've been pushing to do the same in Ukraine and Georgia.

Can you blame Russia for being upset that NATO countries on their border are pointing missiles at them? The next thing you know we'll see missiles pointed at us like during the Cuban Missile Crisis-- which was at least partly caused by our setting up missiles in Turkey at the time. The EU Trade deal that Yanukovych refused to sign would have been a backdoor towards NATO membership, because it says that Ukraine would be part of the common security and foreign policy of the EU, which is of course linked to NATO. Additionally, although many Ukrainians are open to economic ties with both Russia and Europe, the majority by far are opposed to becoming part of NATO because they know that would increase tensions with Russia.

The United States is completely at fault for this escalation. The current government in Kiev is NOT legitimate. And our intervention could lead to another Cold War.

[KingNothing]

I really just don't think our government has the credibility to be talking smack to others about violating sovereignty.

"Our government" isn't a monolithic thing. Neocons have no credibility, but people like Amash certainly do.

[Brett85]

I don't really have a problem with simply criticizing Russia, but all of the other things that the resolution calls for aren't good. Hopefully Justin just voted for it since it was just a non binding resolution without any force of law.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

This is the kind of statement that neoconservatives can use to further themselves so much. Nothing the United States did justified what Japan did. Why do people seem to put the U.S. on a different moral plane than other nations? No one here would attempt to excuse the U.S. bombing another country because they slapped some form of sanctions on us, so why even write stuff that gives off even the faintest hint of making an excuse for Japan (or anyone else) bombing another country because of sanctions?

Furthermore, I'd go so far as to say that the sanctions against Japan were good. Why shouldn't a country sanction another that's on the warpath, as Imperial Japan was at the time? Is it morally right to give oil to a country in need of it that is doing what Japan was in 1941?

Is anyone here excusing the Japanese for bombing Pearl Harbor? Nope. Are we suggesting that because the U.S. stuck its nose in China and Japan's business, Japan launched a strike in retaliation for sanctions and brought the U.S. into the most devastating war in human history? Yup.

And why should "Government A" punish the people living under "Government B" when it's "Government B" who is responsible for committing atrocities?

[erowe1]

There was a bill that lowered trade restrictions with Russia while also applying some sanctions that Amash voted for. He explained that he supported lowering tariffs while opposed the sanctions. In this particular vote, does this mean Amash supports intervention given his explanation?

In the former case, it was a practical matter with actual effects where the various effects could be weighed against one another. In something like that, I can see making a pragmatic decision.

But in the latter case, where it's making a statement, to vote for it is to agree with the statement as a whole. I agree that one could vote for it while quibbling over various points. But if you're going to compare it with the example you gave, then the determinative parts of the resolution should be the ones that have practical import for Congress, and those are precisely the worst parts of it.

[klamath]

Good for Amash. As far as Japan, damn right we had the right to NOT supply the Japanese war machine raping Nanking.

[kcchiefs6465]

It's a sense of congress. It does nothing and authorizes nothing.
I would much prefer they kept their "sense" to themselves. They sure as shit don't speak for me. Lest someone who has been wronged by their senses think I am to blame. It's tragic how they play their little partisan, hegemonic, games while real people are put at risk. Let it finally be the sense of the people that the Congress shuts the fuck up for a while. They've said and done more than enough already.

As a matter of fact, most times their speaking is only to benefit themselves and the selected few they truly represent. I'm not referring specifically to Amash but just as an in general of the fine folks in Washington. They couldn't relate to the average American if the police seized their vehicle. How out of touch they are is of no short order. Feinstein whining of CIA impropriety. Ha.

[MichaelDavis]

He did vote for a resolution that called for doing that.

I'm from Missouri. Show me. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll114.xml

[RPforPrez.]

I think I lost brain cells reading this post.

The fact that there is even a debate as to Justin Amashs' purity is ridiculous. That people are questioning his actions and saying they won't donate to him is absurd.

This is the exact mentality of the movement that has lead to minimal gains. If you're looking for people who exactly mimic all of your opinions and thoughts, run for office yourself.

Amash has consistently been the strongest voice on both the Congressional and national stage for our thoughts and ideas. This is a nonbinding resolution. It does nothing.

By voting for it, it doesn't mean he agrees with everything in the bill. Do you guys understand how many bills are passed through Congress with random little things in it? Should a bill be voted against if you disagree with 1% of it?

This bill does nothing. He is expressing that he feels its wrong for Russia to invade Ukraine. He hasn't come out and said the US should go invade Russia.

I honestly find it disheartening that so many of you are so critical of one of the only people in Congress who supports the libertarian ideas.

It's not like Massie is perfect. He's had his flaws. Get over them.

I rarely even come on here anymore, even to read posts, just because of the constant negative attitude of everyone here. The only reason I find myself posting anymore is to defend attacks on people like Amash, or Rand or Lee, who are the biggest supporters of our ideals, but find themselves consistently bombarded here with negativity, not to mention in the media or by establishment and democrats.

If Amash can't receive support here, where can he get it?

Rarely is a vote by someone praised. Rarely does anyone point out the hundreds of good votes that Amash has made. Only the one bad vote.

The fact that someone else, perhaps Bentivolio for instance, may align with us on far more issues than someone like McCain is absolutely useless to the people here, as he doesn't align with us on every single one.

[2young2vote]

He's done this in the past - vote for bills that have no actions associated with them, even though he disagrees with the content. He views them as throw-away bills that help him politically. He has voted correctly enough to gain my trust. I have no doubt about his sincerity and integrity.

Edit:

and from the other thread on this page about providing loan guarantees to Ukraine - http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll114.xml He voted no.

[kcchiefs6465]

//

[muh_roads]

People need to stop calling Rand, Amash etc. neocons just because they express disapproval over Russia's actions in Ukraine. As long as the US doesn't get dragged into a war and spend blood and money, I am OK with resolutions and sanctions.

I'm not okay with sanctions. Why should the Russian people suffer just because these assholes like playing chess?

[fr33]

I don't really like the bill but those defending Russia for "protecting their assets" might as well defend the US protecting their assets in countries like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.

[qh4dotcom]

Justin Amash has now consistently shown he's no non-interventionist when it comes to foreign policy. Is it because he has an establishment primary challenge? Is he selling out his principles to cozy up to the establishment? Or does he genuinely believe what he's voting for?



Well about 20 RPF members just proved themselves to be interventionists in a recent poll...so far only about 4 of us voted no for non-interventionism

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?446204-Would-you-risk-your-life-to-save-an-Obama-supporter

[William R]

Or they were simply protecting the Ukranian population against western intervention and the media tricked you into believing there is no western intervention in Ukraine.

Same thing Hitler said when he went into the Sudetenland in 1938. Just protecting the German speaking majority. Not saying Putin is Hitler, but Russia did sign the Budapest Memorandum in 1994. Ukraine gave up thousands of nukes for assurances that its territory wouldn't be violated.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-05/ukraine-gave-up-nuclear-arms-in-1994-deal-russia-flouts.html

[erowe1]

I'm from Missouri. Show me. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll114.xml

I already did.

[erowe1]

I honestly find it disheartening that so many of you are so critical of one of the only people in Congress who supports the libertarian ideas.


Why?

[erowe1]

Good for Amash. As far as Japan, damn right we had the right to NOT supply the Japanese war machine raping Nanking.

Sanctions don't afford us that right. They violate the corresponding right that we have to trade with people there.

If you don't believe in doing trade with the people of some other country, then don't. If you think I should join you in your boycott, then persuade me to do so voluntarily.

[belian78]

Once again, if people are getting disappointed over issues like this, I believe there is a strong isolationist segment in this movement. And yes, I know it is different from non-interventionism (and also protectionism).
Wow.. I never thought I'd see that word be used with any type of seriousness on these boards. But I am not surprised who it's coming from.

[William Tell]

Glad I never sent any money to Amash.

If I ever do send money to a politician, it looks like it'll be Massie.

What about non incumbents? they need the most help.

[LibertyEagle]

Glad I never sent any money to Amash.

If I ever do send money to a politician, it looks like it'll be Massie.

No wonder we never get anywhere. :rolleyes:

Amash is pretty damned fantastic. To act like he isn't, because of this one thing seems like a pretty stupid move to me.

[William Tell]

Well about 20 RPF members just proved themselves to be interventionists in a recent poll...so far only about 4 of us voted no for non-interventionism

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?446204-Would-you-risk-your-life-to-save-an-Obama-supporter

There was so much wrong with that poll....

[Spikender]

Well about 20 RPF members just proved themselves to be interventionists in a recent poll...so far only about 4 of us voted no for non-interventionism

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?446204-Would-you-risk-your-life-to-save-an-Obama-supporter

Please keep that malarkey out of this topic if you would.

And I'm actually with LE on this one, despite the fact that I admittedly am not always in 100% agreement with her. Look, I will criticize anyone, even Ron Paul, if they do something I don't like, but I will still support them unless they completely betray everything they believe in.

Amash is still solid in my book. Rand is similar to him on foreign policy and plenty of you support him, so don't be rash and bash Amash if you think Rand is cash. Nothing wrong with criticizing, as I said, but to say you won't support them at all because of something minor in the grand scheme of things like this seems silly to me.

[KingNothing]

I think I lost brain cells reading this post.

The fact that there is even a debate as to Justin Amashs' purity is ridiculous. That people are questioning his actions and saying they won't donate to him is absurd.

This is the exact mentality of the movement that has lead to minimal gains. If you're looking for people who exactly mimic all of your opinions and thoughts, run for office yourself.

Amash has consistently been the strongest voice on both the Congressional and national stage for our thoughts and ideas. This is a nonbinding resolution. It does nothing.

By voting for it, it doesn't mean he agrees with everything in the bill. Do you guys understand how many bills are passed through Congress with random little things in it? Should a bill be voted against if you disagree with 1% of it?

This bill does nothing. He is expressing that he feels its wrong for Russia to invade Ukraine. He hasn't come out and said the US should go invade Russia.

I honestly find it disheartening that so many of you are so critical of one of the only people in Congress who supports the libertarian ideas.

It's not like Massie is perfect. He's had his flaws. Get over them.

I rarely even come on here anymore, even to read posts, just because of the constant negative attitude of everyone here. The only reason I find myself posting anymore is to defend attacks on people like Amash, or Rand or Lee, who are the biggest supporters of our ideals, but find themselves consistently bombarded here with negativity, not to mention in the media or by establishment and democrats.

If Amash can't receive support here, where can he get it?

Rarely is a vote by someone praised. Rarely does anyone point out the hundreds of good votes that Amash has made. Only the one bad vote.

The fact that someone else, perhaps Bentivolio for instance, may align with us on far more issues than someone like McCain is absolutely useless to the people here, as he doesn't align with us on every single one.

This place has several very delusional posters. Aside from their insanity, it isn't that bad of a place. Best to just ignore or mock them, rather than take them seriously.

[Spikender]

This place has several very delusional posters. Aside from their insanity, it isn't that bad of a place. Best to just ignore or mock them, rather than take them seriously.

You could mock them, but I find it better to discuss it with them instead and try to get them to come around. After all, the people on this forum are the closest to me politically, it would be better and more beneficial to try and change some of their ways than condemn them fully to the pits of mockery.

[klamath]

Sanctions don't afford us that right. They violate the corresponding right that we have to trade with people there.

If you don't believe in doing trade with the people of some other country, then don't. If you think I should join you in your boycott, then persuade me to do so voluntarily.As long as there are countries that is the way it will be. When everybody entirely quits using country names and country borders are only in history books then and only then will just the individuals get the right to only trade with other individuals world wide.
If in this future world you are knowingly selling ammo to the man shooting at me I will reserve the right to target you as well as the man shooting.

[dannno]

What if the in road is a Dead End, in a really bad neighborhood?

Oh it is, he'll have to turn back at some point.. but hopefully he will bring some people back with him who also got tricked into going down that road.

http://southparkstudios-intl.mtvnimages.com/shared/sps/images/shows/southpark/vertical_video/import/season_05/sp_0514_11_v6.jpg?width=480

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

He's done this in the past - vote for bills that have no actions associated with them, even though he disagrees with the content. He views them as throw-away bills that help him politically. He has voted correctly enough to gain my trust. I have no doubt about his sincerity and integrity.

Edit:

and from the other thread on this page about providing loan guarantees to Ukraine - http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll114.xml He voted no.

I sure hope you're right.

[robert68]

As long as there are countries that is the way it will be. When everybody entirely quits using country names and country borders are only in history books then and only then will just the individuals get the right to only trade with other individuals world wide.
If in this future world you are knowingly selling ammo to the man shooting at me I will reserve the right to target you as well as the man shooting.

"As long as there are countries" logic can justify anything the state does.

[LibertyEagle]

As long as there are countries that is the way it will be. When everybody entirely quits using country names and country borders are only in history books then and only then will just the individuals get the right to only trade with other individuals world wide.
If in this future world you are knowingly selling ammo to the man shooting at me I will reserve the right to target you as well as the man shooting.

Afterwards too. World government will offer everything BUT free trading, or free anything for that matter. "Free" tyranny, maybe.

[Cutlerzzz]

Good for Amash. As far as Japan, damn right we had the right to NOT supply the Japanese war machine raping Nanking.

By "we" you mean the US government had the right to prevent private citizens from trading with foreigners?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

And why should "Government A" punish the people living under "Government B" when it's "Government B" who is responsible for committing atrocities?

The U.S. did not stop food, medicine or anything else that would mostly effect "the people" from going into Japan. The U.S. government cut off steel, iron and oil exports to Japan in 1940, things that Japan needed to continue committing aggressive atrocities. If you think doing that was unacceptable, then I ask: would you have any qualms about private arms shipments to Germany in 1940 as well?

[erowe1]

The U.S. did not stop food, medicine or anything else that would mostly effect "the people" from going into Japan. The U.S. government cut off steel, iron and oil exports to Japan in 1940, things that Japan needed to continue committing aggressive atrocities. If you think doing that was unacceptable, then I ask: would you have any qualms about private arms shipments to Germany in 1940 as well?

Yes, that was unacceptable for both Japan and Germany.

[Cutlerzzz]

The U.S. did not stop food, medicine or anything else that would mostly effect "the people" from going into Japan. The U.S. government cut off steel, iron and oil exports to Japan in 1940, things that Japan needed to continue committing aggressive atrocities. If you think doing that was unacceptable, then I ask: would you have any qualms about private arms shipments to Germany in 1940 as well?

If you don't want to trade with them, don't trade. Don't threaten to imprison others who do.

And I'm curious, do you think the US should have taken war refuges and persecuted minorities like the Jews in as immigrants, or do you think keeping them out or sending them back to Germany was the right thing to do?

[MichaelDavis]

I already did.

No you didn't. Show me where Amash voted to send money to Ukraine. This vote was a non-binding resolution. I already linked a vote where Amash voted against giving money to Ukraine. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll114.xml

[erowe1]

No you didn't. Show me where Amash voted to send money to Ukraine. This vote was a non-binding resolution. I already linked a vote where Amash voted against giving money to Ukraine. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll114.xml

Go back and read the quote of exactly what I said to which you replied asking me to show you.

I agreed that he didn't vote to send money to Ukraine, only that he voted for a resolution calling for doing so.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

If you think doing that was unacceptable, then I ask: would you have any qualms about private arms shipments to Germany in 1940 as well?

Not my company, none of my business.

[AngryCanadian]

Russia invaded another country without reason. If I were you, I would be criticizing the seven nay votes. This is not an interventionist vs non-interventionist issue. It's not like Amash voted to send money or weapons to Ukraine. Good job, Justin.


Russia invaded another country without reason.
Like the same way America took Kosovo without reason, and bombed it afterwards and placed radicals and mafia to run it like a client state or more rather look at the fine job your American Gov did in Iraq and Libya both are left in Ruins.

[Dianne]

NO. They did not.
That is the propaganda angle from the folks that engineered the violent overthrow of the Government of Ukraine.

Russia had bases and assets in Crimea. They have good cause to secure those assets. And they were also invited by the locals WHO WERE RIGHTFULLY CONCERNED WITH THE ANTI-RUSSIAN HOSTILES THAT THAT TAKEN OVER UKRAINE.
The people of Crimea will vote on the matter,, but no shots have been fired.. No Hostilities. Russia is providing security for their own assets and against the threat of the Fascists that have taken over.

Sorry,, but my observation is that Russia is doing the right thing here.

I believe that this was targeted at Russia in retaliation for it's diplomacy in preventing escalation in Syria. And for negotiating a deal with Iran.

I agree with you 100% ... When Putin upstaged that fool in the White House in the matter of Syria, it was game on. Somehow that idiot in the White House has to save face with the help of the robot, once known as John Kerry.

[Dianne]

Go back and read the quote of exactly what I said to which you replied asking me to show you.

I agreed that he didn't vote to send money to Ukraine, only that he voted for a resolution calling for doing so.

Sometimes these guys have to do, what they have to do ... Until we see the bigger picture of what they may be working on ... He's worth 5000 of 1 John Boehner, and worth 5000 of Mitch McConnell, and 5000 of John McCain, 1000000 of Obama ...

So, don't sink his ship. We have no idea of what his strategy may be behind this vote. I'm certain it is not sinister, as the majority of the Congress.

[Spikender]

Not my company, none of my business.

I'm with this to an extent, but there are places for protesting and boycotting when it comes to this.

If a company is doing something you don't like, convince others to boycott or hold protests to spread the word and put pressure on the company to stop its behavior.

That's how it's done in a free market, not by Government force.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I'm with this to an extent, but there are places for protesting and boycotting when it comes to this.

If a company is doing something you don't like, convince others to boycott or hold protests to spread the word and put pressure on the company to stop its behavior.

That's how it's done in a free market, not by Government force.

Oh I agree. I should have been more clear when I said that it was none of my business. I don't have to like their business practices and I can try to steer others away from doing business with them (without using force) but at the end of the day, the government does not possess the right to restrict trade because they don't like one group of people but yet will turn the other cheek when another group they're allied with pulls the same shit they're complaining about in the first place.

[DeMintConservative]

Seems like condemning interventionism is something any sensible non-interventionist would do.

There are plenty of people who are merely against US interventionism. And in favour of any non-USA interventionism as long as they perceive it to be hostile to the US and their allies.

[DeMintConservative]

Like the same way America took Kosovo without reason, and bombed it afterwards and placed radicals and mafia to run it like a client state or more rather look at the fine job your American Gov did in Iraq and Libya both are left in Ruins.

Right. So how can anyone condemn American interventionism in those places and not Russian interventionism?

The idea that every event of military and imperialistic interventionism is a backlash of previous American actions is very popular here but obviously laughable.

I suspect some folks believe that Napoleon Bonaparte was a by-product of the evil American government.

[Pericles]

I suspect some folks believe that Napoleon Bonaparte was a by-product of the evil American government.

He was our ally against the British in the War of 1812! :D