Well, is he?
Reply With Quote
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Yes
No
Well, is he?
No, he is a non-interventionist.
No, he served in the US military and he has previously voted for use of military force.
I voted no. I just said that he has some pacifist tendencies, but he's voted for some military action, such as the authorization after 9-11, so I wouldn't call him a pacifist.
Why ask this? Is there any reason to think he is?
Exactly. So why am I getting called a "pacifist" for opposing the same intervention in ISIS that Ron opposes?Originally Posted by kylejack
I have no reason to think so. But I've been accused of being a pacifist for taking the same position on ISIS that he does.
Ahhhh. So that's why.
You've said that we shouldn't have even used military action after we were attacked on 9-11, and you've said that we shouldn't have taken military action against Japan after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, because we provoked the attack. That's pacifism.
For one he voted for the strikes against the taliban. WTF would u even ask the question in the first place?
Ghandi was a pacifist. But even he didnt say that if you are getting your ass kicked that you shouldnt fight back. All it means is dont try to provoke the fight to begin with, but self defense is aways acceptable. Now our Govt on the other hand loves to provoke the fight by doing everything possible to piss off other countries. Sanctions, funding Rebels, public opinion manipulation, hostile financial takeovers, everything. Once they provoke military responses, the opinion of the public is pushed toward "See? They attacked us first!" which validates our Military Response to their actions and perpetual war. When your Govt starts advocating Pre-emptive Military Action, you know your country does not believe in peace. True non intervention doesnt work like this at all.
1776 > 1984
The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.
The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide
Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled
Pacifism means that the use of violence is ALWAYS wrong. There's a huge difference between saying that its wrong to defend yourself against an attack that you provoked, and saying its wrong to defend yourself against attacks period. If someone broke into your house and you shot them, that would be justified.
Admittedly, WWII is a bit grayer than 9/11, as 9/11 was blatantly provoked by US foreign policy, and frankly proportional to the amount of civilians the US government has murdered (Note that I did not say it was JUSTIFIED, and it was not because two wrongs don't make a right. But I don't see how it was any worse than stuff the US government has done to Middle Eastern nations.) In WWII at least Japan actually did escalate things by using economic sanctions as a pretext for war. Its not so much that I don't think "military action" against the Japanese GOVERNMENT was justified (I think that it could have been), as it is that I think killing civilians is absolutely immoral in every instance. The best thing to do probably would have been to wage war against the Japanese navy and sank as many ships as we possibly could, so as to make it impossible for Japan to make any meaningful attacks on US soil.
in all his ways he seeks a peaceful path...so do i, its why i support him and why he is MY president.
FLIP THOSE FLAGS, THE NATION IS IN DISTRESS!
why I should worship the state (who apparently is the only party that can possess guns without question).
The state's only purpose is to kill and control. Why do you worship it? - Sola_Fide
Baptiste said.
At which point will Americans realize that creating an unaccountable institution that is able to pass its liability on to tax-payers is immoral and attracts sociopaths?
Let's say that you go pick a fight with someone, and you attack that person in an unprovoked way. Then that person gets on top of you and starts punching you in the face, beating you to a pulp and threatening your life. Are you just supposed to let that person beat you to a pulp or kill you just because you started the fight? Of course not. Even if you started the fight, you still have to defend yourself when your life is in danger. In the same way, our government has the right to defend our citizens when we've been attacked, regardless of whether the attack was "provoked" or not.
Because the Rand apologists are war hawks that call everyone who doesn't want a war a pacifist.
Americans that travel to areas that the State Department has recommendations against are endangering their own lives and not worth going to war over.
In Ron's own words, he voluntarily joined the military as opposed to getting drafted so he could serve as a doctor, rather than have to shoot someone. Didn't spank his children. So he might actually be pacifist in his personal life.
For his political career, if we're talking the original definition of pacifism, then yes, he could pass as one. But pacifism doesn't really mean opposition to aggression anymore, it more or less means opposition to all violence, defense or offensive.
The epitome of libertarian populism
Would we really support Rand if we were "war hawks?" If we were really "war hawks" or "neocons," wouldn't we be supporting someone like Marco Rubio instead?
If you called the OP a pacifist for expressing similar sentiment to Ron Paul, then yes, you're a war hawk.
Rand Paul is not as hawkish as some, but he certainly has a few hawkish tendencies. War because 2 people died, sanctions on trade in other countries, etc.
Its a gray area at best, honestly. I guess it depends on the definition of "attacked" though. If you slapped them and they respond by trying to shoot you, you may be justified. On the other hand, if you attacked them by cutting both of the arms off of one of their kids, I don't see how you could possibly do anything other than let them kill you and be morally justified.
The problem is that its really hard to distinguish between the people running the US government, the people in the US military, and civilians who have nothing to do with it, like me. I don't deserve to die for their actions.
Of course, ISIS isn't even attacking the US, so its not even that level of a gray area.
There are degrees of hawkishness and dovishness. You all are far more noninterventionist than Rubio, and significantly more interventionist than Ron Paul.
Ron Paul didn't argue that we shouldn't have used military action after 9-11, or that we shouldn't have used military action after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor.
Significantly? About the only interventions I've supported that I think were justified was stopping Hitler and now stopping ISIS. Other than that, my foreign policy is basically identical to Ron Paul's.
That's a pretty substantial difference, actually.
I haven't exactly argued this either.
I thought you argued previously that we didn't have the right to use military action after 9-11 and after Pearl Harbor since we provoked those attacks. I'm not trying to misrepresent your position. Maybe I just don't understand it.
This is rock-solid truth. Which is why I voted yes above.
I believe what I said is that 9-11 didn't justify war. I would have been OK with using letters of marque and reprisal against specific people who were involved in 9/11, if indeed we knew who they were.
I will say without reservation that our targeting Japanese civilians with bombs was completely wrong. I think we should have prepared ourselves for future attacks and engaged the Japanese navy if needed. I would have made an attempt to negotate peace for a lifting of the sanctions, but if that didn't work, I would have sunk as many Japanese ships as possible so as to prevent any opportunity for Japan to attack US soil. I would not have bombed the Japanese mainland or invaded it.
Ron is a bit too hesitant to use military force
You cannot be in a position of power and remain a pacifist.
It is not that simple:
A great many people can be called a pacifist or self-identify as the same without meaning "that the use of violence is ALWAYS wrong". Keep in mind that the dictionary definition just scratches the surface and it may not generally identify a pacifist exactly just as if often may not identify a liberal, conservative, socialist or libertarian (given the subtleties of political philosophy).pacifism
[pas-uh-fiz-uh m]
Examples
Word Origin
noun
1. opposition to war or violence of any kind.
2. refusal to engage in military activity because of one's principles or beliefs.
3. the principle or policy that all differences among nations should be adjusted without recourse to war.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pacifism
Why does the younger generation ask a forum instead of doing a minute of research?
That's lazy! I've decided to call you lazy and look forward to a future poll question, "Is Ron Paul a layabout?"
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us