0 votes

Do You Support Rand Paul's Current Position on Foreign Policy?

Something has been eating at me for the past few days now and I thought I'd wait for us to reach some kind of high point before bringing us all back down to Earth. I hope this gets considered by many of you here because I feel if there is a place to lay this forth then the DP is the place to do it. I have been very excited about the recent crop of candidates, many of which have had their strong points in various areas which is good and healthy for our movement. My biggest concern is two part and may bring me great criticism. First of all I don't think we have really held the new wave accountable as we have others hoping to attain the office. The recent crop have almost unanimously decided to run with the Republican Party and have all but one notable exception, made a firm and thorough stance concerning wars of aggression abroad.
It seems that many have accepted the line that wars are expensive and hence we shouldn't fight them liberally as a complete thought on this issue. This is hardly all Ron Paul would have to say on the issue. In fact it would seem that his tone on the war often related to morality than on the economics. Are lives measured in dollars and cents? I feel the power of this movement during the election and some time forward centered around the moral issue of foreign adventures, blowback, and doing on to others what we would have done to us.
So what is my point? After several interviews and comments from Rand Paul and Peter Schiff, it is hard for me to tell if they oppose the war on terror or any other empirical actions for all the right reasons. Have they simply not been asked the right questions or do they weigh the reasons to invade countries differently? According to the foreign policy tab at Rand Paul's campaign site his comments give the impression that Iraq was wrong but maybe Afghanistan was right, if only we declared it. Knowing what I know now, I don't see very much difference in the invasion of either country "legal" or not.

Full disclosure to everyone, this ultimately weighed against me participating in yesterdays money bomb. While I do believe both candidates are fathoms above the rest, for personal reasons I hope they address these issues during their campaigns. The stakes are high. Many anti-war liberals attack libertarians and conservatives who base their positions against the war on monetary reasons alone. This only further solidifies the notion that we don't care about people, justice, and dignity. This I know is false because I've met so many good people, thinkers, and philosophers for peace and liberty. One of whom is Ron Paul who has successfully spread a message that at the core I would hope we can adhere to and to some degree hold future leaders accountable to. No Party should control our message. To fear the people not understanding this simple notion is not only deceitful but disingenuous to the core values this movement was built upon.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Invading Afghanistan never

Invading Afghanistan never made any sense and it was never just. None of the afghan people were involved in 9/11 so how dare anyone think that killing them is just? The Bin laden spectre is getting pretty old- I remember around the time it happened he flatly denied he was involved. And everyone's response was "Why would you believe him?!?!"- as if US military intelligence is more believable

Ron Paul

Well Ron voted for Afghanistan. It can be nuanced. He thought they should go in selectively not start a foreign occupation.

However, he probably should have voted against it on the guidelines that the Federal government is not capable of doing anything correctly.

We could get by a nuclear bomb, and we would probably be better off not letting them do anything.

It's really quite simple

Most American still believe the notion that Osama Bin Laden committed 9/11. (I know, I know....) So, for someone running for office saying that it was not a justified invasion would make even hardcore Democrats freak out a bit. You can't blame him for accepting that reality, and he probably truly believes it was a justified military action - but not the ensueing occupation.

I think it was Mayor Koch who said: "If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, see a psychiatrist."

www.libertyrestorationproject.org
"We are the inheritors of the American Enlightenment, which tells us that Individual Liberty always trumps collectivism in all forms."

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Anybody want to know what I'm thinking?

I'm thinking that there's a whole lot of people around here with the DoubleSpeak virus.

******************
It is good and proper to respect the U.S. flag, perpetuated with the blood of American heroes. It is a fatal mistake not to recognize those who wrap themselves in the same flag to cover up their crimes against the American people.
~ Sherman H. Skolnick

. @ @ . Power to the People!
@ O @ -----> PEOPLE
. @ @ . NOT Corporate Entities!

I think there's a lot of people here

with disingenuous agendas. We all know where he stands. Lets let this ridiculous and counter-productive thread die.

"In the capitalist society there is a place and bread for all. Its ability to expand provides sustenance for every worker. Permanent unemployment is not a feature of free capitalism." - Mises - www.mises.org

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

Yep

this place is overwhelmed by them

Right,

just sweep it under the carpet,
that'll clean it up.

******************
It is good and proper to respect the U.S. flag, perpetuated with the blood of American heroes. It is a fatal mistake not to recognize those who wrap themselves in the same flag to cover up their crimes against the American people.
~ Sherman H. Skolnick

. @ @ . Power to the People!
@ O @ -----> PEOPLE
. @ @ . NOT Corporate Entities!

Supporting the initial invation does not equal

I need to look into it more but consider that his statement about supporting the initial invasion of Afghanistan is not ideologically wrong from the standpoint of responding to an attack.

Nor does said statement mean he is actually supportive of current occupations and expansions of said actions.

I think it is likely a matter of speaking truth in one part of the matter and leaving the rest unsaid. Most out there will take his statement to mean he is hawkish even as folks are here based upon the statements we are seeing.

But the one does not logically follow. I think most of us are intellegent enough to see through the politics of such a word game in his stated support of the Afghanistan invasion.

He is saying he would have supported the initial Afghanistan invasion with a declaration. Most take that to mean he is a hawk without stopping to think it all through especially in considering his other positions and how they relate.

In short he is probably letting the hawkish voters assume he is a hawk while expecting the more informed logical sorts to actually READ what he said without making the same assumptions.

Doesn't that make him a stereotypical liar?

I mean politician...

"...to win the Republican primary he has to say he'd support going into Afghanistan whether it's true or not."

******************
It is good and proper to respect the U.S. flag, perpetuated with the blood of American heroes. It is a fatal mistake not to recognize those who wrap themselves in the same flag to cover up their crimes against the American people.
~ Sherman H. Skolnick

. @ @ . Power to the People!
@ O @ -----> PEOPLE
. @ @ . NOT Corporate Entities!

I don't live in Kentucky,

I don't live in Kentucky, but if it's anything like where I live, then to win the Republican primary he has to say he'd support going into Afghanistan whether it's true or not. Otherwise he might as well give everyone their money back and go back enjoying his life with his family and his medical practice as I don't see Grayson being tapped for a position in Obama's administration.

Although I can't vote for Rand, I will support him as best as I can not as the lesser of multiple evils, but rather as that rare candidate that will truly be great for this country.

So you're saying

that he'll say whatever it takes to win? Not much like his old man, then... is he?

*******************
It is good and proper to respect the U.S. flag, perpetuated with the blood of American heroes. It is a fatal mistake not to recognize those who wrap themselves in the same flag to cover up their crimes against the American people.
~ Sherman H. Skolnick

. @ @ . Power to the People!
@ O @ -----> PEOPLE
. @ @ . NOT Corporate Entities!

No

Has he said that he supports jingoism? He supports our troops, and if congress declares war, he will support the war and fight to make sure that we win it quickly and then come home. He is against occupying other countries.

Do you regret your Obama vote yet? Or are you still on the coolaid? I give it 3 months before the rest of you bleeding hearts realize Obama played you.

Are you happy that Obama has racheted up the incursions into Pakistan? He has doubled the attacks into pakistan since he took over. I thought the screaming, crying, bleeding heart lefties were opposed to the war, I guess they were only opposed to Bush's war but when it comes to Obama they shut their mouths. Redirect your energy, this is about America, not your lousy democratic party.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/103059

yes i support him 100% i am

yes i support him 100% i am not anti war .. i do believe in a just war .. without one this country wouldnt exist .. and neither would liberty or freedom

there is a such thing as a just war ...

remember the quote about the blood of tyrants and patriots ... and the spirit of NH's state motto live free or die

All paper money eventually returns to its real intrinsic value, zero. - Voltaire

Is the war in Afghanistan a "just war", in your opinion?

"yes i support him 100% i am not anti war .. i do believe in a just war"

Please enlighten us about the justness of this particular war.

******************
It is good and proper to respect the U.S. flag, perpetuated with the blood of American heroes. It is a fatal mistake not to recognize those who wrap themselves in the same flag to cover up their crimes against the American people.
~ Sherman H. Skolnick

. @ @ . Power to the People!
@ O @ -----> PEOPLE
. @ @ . NOT Corporate Entities!

in my opinion .. going to

in my opinion .. going to war in afghanistan made sense but no i do not support it because it was an undeclared war and there were no goals met completed and the mission was never terminated ..

in the more specific sense no .. i do not support the war in afghanistan ...but i do support going after bin laden ... would i have voted for these military authorizations ... no

if we wanted bin laden we could have had him .. but the point is we dont .. im not a war monger and i dont love war ... i do not support afghanistan nor iraq wars

All paper money eventually returns to its real intrinsic value, zero. - Voltaire

Thank you for saying this

While I DID participate in the money bomb, and hope he wins, Rand's statement that he would have voted to go to war with Afghanistan is not acceptable to me.

I don't want to prolong the reign of ignorance in our government, I don't have any patience with the notion that we ought to keep the truth about 911 all "hush hush" because it will offend people. How can we move forward when we are catering to weaknesses and the least common denominator?

If more credible people spoke out, instead of skulking around in the shadows on this issue, we would have much less support of these wars. How many people in the military right now NEVER would have joined if they knew the truth about 911?

And without the military, they'd have to draft, and we might have a recurrence of 60's war protests really quick. They don't want that.

I'd just like to say

that if I believed - really believed - that 9/11 was an inside job/false flag operation;

MEANING THAT the destruction of the towers, murder of thousands of innocent people, and all that were planned and executed by our own government as a scheme to more easily deprive the citizens of their liberties and invade and plunder foreign countries with impunity;

I WOULD CONSIDER the government of the U. S. far beyond electoral rehabilitation, and my efforts would be expended not in an attempt to replace (a handful of) the war criminals in the government with people more to my liking, but rather in a campaign of a very different nature.

If I believed such a thing.

Right

I agree. But then people keep pushing the fact that Muslims want to kill the infidel. We do need to get to the bottom of 911 and whether any real Muslims were on the planes who were NOT supported by our CIA and army. Then we need to decide how we are going to handle and live with Muslims once and for all.

If you you believe 9/11 was done by Bin Landen who was

given comfort and shelter by the Taliban then yes, Rand Paul is right. It all depends are your view of 9/11.

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

-Alexis de Tocqueville

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

-Alexis de Tocqueville

"The most mportant thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden...

It's our number one priority, and we will not rest until we find him."
-George W. Bush, September 13, 2001

"I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
-George W. Bush, March 13, 2002

CIA, Drugs, Wall Street & 9-11
http://www.archive.org/details/MichaelC.RuppertIntroduction

Excuse me people

It is EXTREMELY important to say the right things to get elected. None of the C4L candidates has said anything to repudiate the non-interventionist position supported by Ron Paul and ourselves. I understand the desire for ideological purity, but radical rhetoric will only get these candidates marginalized. I believe, too, that there are varying degrees of non-interventionist policy. So, we can't be "holier than thou" about how a candidate presents this issue. Just ask yourself, "Will this candidate support more wars of aggression, or does he recognize that our nations well-being depends on pursuing our own national interest?"
With the number and magnitude of the problems facing America, it's madness to deny your support based on a partial doubt that a candidate isn't precisely in sync with our agenda. Look at the big picture and recognize that these Liberty candidates need all of us and more to win our country back.

I disagree, it's not madness

because war is SUCH an important issue.

George Bush stumbling and mentioning "the explosives" at the :20 mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USnxe7hxP4I

Watch the first minute:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWXm4SmBEIE&feature=related

Yes, It's Not About "Purity"

It is a critical issue, and the primary method of increasing government coercion.

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

I am dissapointed by this as well.

I like Rand but in looking at his policies on his website I did not see a strong stance against war and foreign intervention. Perhaps this is political, but I think we have to keep focusing on getting the right message out not in saying the right things to get elected.

As far as voting for

As far as voting for Afghanistan, I thought he meant that under the conditions at the time that, like his father, he would have voted to go into Afghanistan for the purpose of finding and bringing to justice the perpetrators of 9/11.

I believe you are right

I'm certain of it, in fact.

Ugh... "the forest for the trees"...

No War = No War. PERIOD.

We're trying to win an election. Normally, I would be just as cynical as some of you are, but this is Ron-FREAKING-Paul's SON!

Who cares if NOT going to war is a monetary issue vs. a moral one? The great (or sobering) thing about the monetary argument is this: our country is SO FAR in DEBT, it'd take decades of conservative fiscal policy, and sound monetary policy, to be able to 'afford' a war! Can't you see?? Decades! That's scores of years of Americans saying, "well, we'd love to help slaughter some of your rabble-rousers, but darn it, we just can't afford it." And you know what? When we reach the day when people aren't being senselessly killed, I don't care what anybody else says about their reasoning, I'm happy!

Now ask yourself this: Do you seriously think Dr. Paul would raise a neo-con?

Bah! Go back under the bridges from whence you came...
Nothing's gonna down me from my money bomb high! :)

If it makes you feel better...

He will probably oppose any future war based on a fiscal standpoint.

Right now he's just packaging the foreign policy message to "appeal" to us average Kentuckians (who are pretty hawkish).

In a word? No.

At least, if he keeps saying and means what he said about "would've voted for the war in Afghanistan." Beyond what 2000+ yrs of history teaches us, not to mention common sense, no foreign occupiers EVER win over an organized determined native population, especially one that's coupled with a tough geographical terrain, and an extreme religious ideology.

Thus, to me, being a Paul, does not give him an automatic pass. After Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul's LIVING example of stellar voting record as well as LIVING the intellectually distilled principles, absorbed, and demonstrative in his public service, while a high standard compared to the current status quo to live up to, personally, having witnessed such great man of character as a living possibility, I feel we should NOT lower our standards, and chip away at the principles of liberty.

Now, to be fair, considering the rigged election and ballot process, I cannot blame Rand for communicating in a more commonly understood paradigm to his potential GOP constituents in his state, ie no mention of "false flagging," or overtly anti-war for anti-war sake, ie "pacifist." But, I do recall him, though I could be wrong, mentioning Gulf of Tonkin as being staged. But someone can correct me on that.

For those of us aware of the the lunacy that is the NWO, it is urgent and time is of the essence, But, as we all know, politically speaking, it is a slow, gradual process to inform the sheeple, that those who have hijacked OUR gvt, have betrayed them, and damn near EVERY single Constitutional dictates, is not an easy pill to swallow. Be that as it may, I and hopefully others here as well as all Ron Paul Constitutionalists, will hold Rand to the same standard that we have seen displayed through all these tumultuous years of bearing the brunt of the slings and arrows by the Good Doctor, would not have all been in vain.

No doubt, it is crucial that Ron Paul has MANY more allies. That being said, I would take ANYONE who is 60-70% of the man that Dr. Ron Paul has proven himself to be, over a Dem/GOP Machine NWO shill who is 0.00000005% the man that Ron Paul is, any day of the week.

So, Schiff, Rand, Kokesh, and/or ANY future "liberty/freedom" candidates should all be held to the MAXIMUM highest standard of OUR principles of liberty and freedom, of: sound money, noninterventionism, NO warfare/welfare corporatist State, non-Statist policies, NO NEW TAXES, reduce and/or rid ALL taxes, End the FED, rid the influence of lobbies, and the military industrial complex and Wall St., FULL RESTORATION of the Bill of Rights, and upholding their oath to FULLY defend and protect ALL aspects of the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic; basically rid all Gvt agencies outsides the bounds of its very explicit 17 enumerated functions of the Federal gvt.

Na, we shouldn't have any problems keeping them to that standard.

I hear you.

When checking out a candidate I always look at their stand on foreign policy. This really is a big deal. This is where RP was in deep opposition with the rest in the primaries.
Inside job 911 or not. We were presented with some cavedwellers jumping around in the sand that were supposedly responsible. Does this really justify a war of agression against an ideal (terrorism) 8 years and running? Like the war on drugs (40 years) is this going to be another nerver ending war? These are human beings ravaged. This is you and me.
It breaks my heart. I understand your stand completely I picked up on your obervation immediately also and it rubbed me the wrong way. It really is disgusting to approach this from a money angle Maybe it's a ploy to get into the rep.party. I wish I had an answer.