I didn't see the debate on t.v. so it looks like he was blaming the other candidates of being aggressive when they weren't.
NO. and there's already a thread about this. This is why there is a,
"Is brit hume Retarded" type thread.
here
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=86401
Last edited by alexa doherty; 01-11-2008 at 07:43 AM.
They kind of mis-took what he was saying. They talked about how the military people did a good job of not being provoked, but they also made a bunch of warnings to Iran.
RP was complaining about the threats and warnings, not what the Navy leaders did.
No, he was talking about their more general tone, and the mindset of the war hawks in Washington. Hume is just a troll pretending not to understand, like most of them.
Preface: Ron did AWESOME last night and re-inspired me. so the rest is nitpicking.
I do think Ron should try to remember to stress that he trusts the judgement of the commanders to make those split-second decisions, but it's OUR POLICY that determines where to put them in the world. And if our policy is unnecessarily creating situations where these things are bound to happen, then we need to rethink it.
But I'd also like him to not minimize the risk that a speedboat posed to the ships because of the Cole incident. He needs to be clear that they absolutely have a right to defend themselves according to their rules of military engagement.
That said, GREAT JOB, Dr. Paul!
I think he could have done a better job. He took the question and kind of re-hashed what he had already said about our relations with Iran in general. I think he should have answered the question and said what the other candidates said - I trust our military leaders, I think they made a prudent choice, etc. But THEN go into how he was a little dismayed that the other candidates seem to be too willing to get into fisticuffs.Originally Posted by ZzzImAsleep
Maybe talk about how Iran and the other terrorists know how easy it is to provoke us, and they WANT us to open fire and start WWIII, and that we need to be smarter than that. Then get into the fact that our military is now saying that they are not sure where the voices saying they were going to blow up soon were coming from as an example of why it's so important to be prudent.
Instead he dove in head first, basically ignoring the question and talking about our foreign policy again. I think he did a poor job of explaining his position on the exact incident he was asked about, and another poor job of explaining what exactly he was unhappy about in the other candidates' answers.
it was not his best moment. then Hume made him look dumb, then he compounded it by not being able to hear. If I were an undecided voter who was seeing Dr. Paul for the first time, that would have really come off looking bad.
Oh, and also, Dr. Paul blowing off these little speed boats as not a big deal looked bad too because a boat very similar to these blew a hole in a ship a few years ago, right?? Why cant these "little" speed boats be filled to the gills with explosives?
That was honestly the first thing that came to my mind, and I am going to vote for Dr. Paul. I cant imagine what an undecided voter was thinking....
Except they were being aggressive.
"gates of hell"
"sending them to their 70 virgins"
etc...
His response was perfectly fine and the moderator made him look like a kook.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
I still can't figure out what identifies those speed boats as Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
Always Remember:
Freedom isn't free, no there's a hefty f***'n fee.
Keeping in line with Neo-Con policies criminals have started showing their support for local police by engaging them in deadly shootouts.
I am a proud Ron Paul Republican.
We will die on our feet before we live on our knees.
Agreed, they intentionally misunderstood Paul, or pretended to.
They were definitely Iranian Navy Patrol Boats. The Iranians released a video that their navy took of the incident. In THAT video, it shows the Iranians having a legitimate radio conversation with the US boat. The conversation was routine and not hostile. That audio was never released by the US govt.
No. He was obviously talking about how the incident was being used by some in Washington to continue to beat the drums of war. Brit Hume, the "so-called" moderator wanted to make Ron Paul look bad and he tried to use the comment to make RP look confused. I believe Mr. Hume was a bit confused. He didn't realize that Paul could shut him down with facts.
it was a switch trap, and Ron handled it well
As I recall this whole scene started with RP not being able to properly hear the question as the audio reinforcement foldback system (aka stage monitor speakers) was either not working properly or someone was messing with it just to try and torture Ron Paul making him look like he was hard of hearing or just plain mixed up. While it caused some problems Ron Paul turned a bad situation in to a positive one.
Also, did anyone notice HOW BAD the lighting was and the shadows coming off Ron Paul's face? Yikes & Big Yuck!
By far Ron looked the worst with Mitt, Fred & Mac Attack looking much better
Go Figure - Faux
I have water skied behind bigger boats. This whole thing is a joke and this is proof that ALL of these conflicts are pushed for by the PTB.
To bad that Iranians have video cameras now unlike the Bay of Tonkin incident.
Get Free Political Blogs about the best Candidate- Ron Paul or Email : you@ronpaulblogs.com
_____________________________________________
Fox News Conservative? - Download their 2008 Prez donations
Hume called the action provocation and aggressive TWICE -
Ron Paul was totally right - Goon Hume is a moron.
Honestly. My first thought when they asked that question, even before any of the candidates opened their mouths. How in the HELL can they use this incident being it's still being investigated on what the hell happened>?
WARMONGERS
Only part RP didn't hear was how this was suddenly characterized as passive by Brit Hume ?
Where did he get THAT from? Like thin air or something ?
Not what I heard either , and I had the volume up real LOUD with the Gates of Hell and virgins World War III sabre-rattling by the other candidates.
For us maybe not, but for you average republican, definately YES.
If huckabee telling iran to meet the gates of hell, then mccain talking about burkhas and being pretty much a racist, then romney telling us its a huge threat and we should be ready for an attack from iran isnt agressive then i dont know what is.
They all agreed that the commanders should have full controll. but they said everything short of SHOOT THE $#@!ERS out of the water.
I dont believe anything the Bush adminstration or the media say when it comes to stuff like this. Point and case being look @ Iraq clear lies and the media fueled it
as well. Blood is indirectly on their hands and the United States government hasn't
showen me any reason to believe anything that they say. These reports allways come up before a debate as well all last summer there were incidents that happened either before the day of a debate or the day. Look @ the pundit media for example on the day of the new hampshire primary every interview was a hit piece especially the one by Andrea Mitchell of CNN talking about crap from 20 yrs ago he didn't say. She also happens to be the wife of Alan Greenspan. Now that the SC primary is coming the population of SC is I believe 50% black americans
so what does cnn do then run a headline of Ron's face on the front page all day a hugh picture calling him a racist. This is not an accident. So tell me why should I believe the boat accident there all LIERS!
Ron Paul only screwed up by not calling out Brit Hume on the Question itself. The Question is designed to presuppose that the naval command screwed up by NOT attacking.
Read the question:
I'd say that no attack occurred and that we didn't end up going to war over a possible misunderstanding a "correct call". WHY ON EARTH would he suggest that it wasn't? If something HAD happened (U.S. ships attacked) then you could 2nd guess the "call".HUME:
Governor Huckabee, did the American commander in the Strait of Hormuz the other day make the right decision by responding passively when approached aggressively by Iranian fast boats believed to be from the Revolutionary Guards? He also received, as you know, a warning that said that the American ships might be about to blow up.
Did he make the correct call, sir?
Insert some answer by Huckabee
Once again Hume is putting the idea out that that doing "nothing" was wrong. Once again, I would say that the fact that "nothing" actually happened (the us ships were not attacked) proves that those in charge made the correct decision. Why are we even questioning an act that prevented warfare?HUME: But, sir, in this instance, the American warships -- in this instance, however, the American warships were approached in a way that the commander said that he found provocative, indeed, aggressive. They also received a warning that suggested that the American ships might be blown up and things were thrown into the water. They didn't know what they were. They did nothing.
I think most everybody in this thread "gets it".
I didn't see much of anything about those speed boats that looked like military. They looked more like the typical smugglers that you see in those waters. The ship crews on OUR (my) MILITARY combat ships acted just right. Had the speed boats continued an approach, you'd have seen speed boat parts flying no matter what color they were painted.
Ron Paul was correct when he tried to show that there was little value in trying to expand the idea of those boats representing an Iranian military armada facing off with our little defenseless boats crewed by hapless children wearing cute sailor hats.
What you saw, in plain view of the masses, was a media flame job. "We report, you decide" my back end!
There is no way under the sun that our navy was intimidated by those boats. They handled the situation just right and so did Ron Paul by his choice of comment.
Tugboat
All the stooges gave the required answer. Yes, the destroyer captain did the right thing, of course. But they each followed up with war-mongering hawish comments like bullies.
Dr. Paul was remarking about those comments and Bush's recent disappointmnet over the NIE report of no nuclear progrma/enrichment, etc. going on in Iran. He was addressing the entire policy of hawishness for more war and urging caution so as not to jump into a war with a knee-jerk reaction. He was basically trying to warn the people of the dangers of this attitude.
What the Hell ever happened to diplomacy? We pay big money to diplomats. Let them earn it.
Carole
"Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over. -Cong. Louis McFadden
Hume is a retard, all the candidates pretty much supported Bush's statement of "Iran you better back off or else" Come on, that's a pretty threating statement. Sounds like a war statement to me.
And Hume had enough nerve to say to Ron Paul "what are you arguing about all the other candidates support being passive". Passive my ass...
The Gulf of Tonkin comment is being repeated by a lot of thoughtful people today. Major historians are saying basically the same thing that Dr. Paul tried to get heard last night.
These Iranian Republican Guard and U.S. Republican Old Guard yahoos are playing the same game, and Dr. Paul was as cool and professional as the excellent Navy personnel were in their reaction to the same incident. The warhawks will think what they want about it, but with a little help from us it won't stick with reasonable people.
Diplomacy.... On naval ships of the line there is little diplomacy. OH there is some, to be sure. But their job is to patrol and keep the shipping lanes free and clear.What the Hell ever happened to diplomacy? We pay big money to diplomats. Let them earn it.
Diplomacy at sea.... I've posted my kind of at-sea diplomacy on other threads. I'll repeat it. Passing into the Persian Gulf, my little white painted US Naval oceanographic research ship was passing along a sea lane when an Iranian gun boat approached to about 15 yards. Its crew were manning 50 cal guns. When I motioned for them to back away, their guns conveniently centered in on my chest.
Well, they must have thought I looked somewhat like a football field goal post, having a clipboard tucked under my chin and both (errr) fingers held high over my head. They backed off and left just after the two US Navy jets finished their supesonic fly bye scant yards on either side of my ships stack. The man on the stern of the gun boat manning the 50 cal winked and smiled as the gunboat pulled away. I continued with my First Assistant Engineer tasks. That happened sometime not long after the first desert storm. And that same kind of Diplomacy has been at it to this day.
But speaking of political diplomacy. It's the silent goal of much of that intended to keep the debate going, and not to solve the problems? That's just one reason we need Ron Paul in the Oval Office.
Tugboat
Unfortunately neither the average voter nor the media seems to know that the sailors guarding the USS Cole were under orders not to fire upon approaching ships unless directly ordered to do so by the Captain or an authorized officer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
The destroyer's rules of engagement, as approved by the Pentagon, kept its guards from firing upon the small boat loaded with explosives as it neared them without first obtaining permission from the Cole's captain or another officer.[8]
Petty Officer John Washak said that right after the blast, a senior chief petty officer ordered him to turn an M-60 machine gun on the Cole's fantail away from a second small boat approaching. "With blood still on my face," he said, he was told: "That's the rules of engagement: no shooting unless we're shot at." He added, "In the military, it's like we're trained to hesitate now. If somebody had seen something wrong and shot, he probably would have been court-martialed." Petty Officer Jennifer Kudrick said that if the sentries had fired on the suicide craft "we would have gotten in more trouble for shooting two foreigners than losing seventeen American sailors."[9]
This was a preventable tragedy caused by politicians telling the military not to defend itself. Sad.
Great to see we have pyshics on this forum.
Ron Paul hammered this question out of the ballpark. GRANDSLAM...
Yes the others were using it as an excuse to attack Iran and play their wardrums. Huckster told they "Would burn in the Gates of Hell" I don't think that is passive. That's just a plain irresponsible thing to say. Especially for someone running for president.
U.S. Marine for Ron Paul
Defend the Constitution
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate
Google "Hanoi McCain"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us