0 votes

NH Union leader article slams Ron Paul (Ron Paul response is now here)

Please comment on this article at the link below.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Paul's+isolationism%3A+Unrealistic+and+dangerous&articleId=337db256-d684-4098-a896-7bc5fe6123b2

Paul's isolationism: Unrealistic and dangerous

2 hours, 45 minutes ago

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, the libertarian darling running for the Republican nomination for President, seems to think that the only national security threat America faces is from a direct military assault on our soil. Nothing else -- Chinese expansion, Iranian nuclear development, Russian imperial ambitions -- is any concern of ours.

In a Wednesday interview, Rep. Paul suggested closing most of our overseas military bases. The military exists to protect our national security, not our economic interests, he said. Asked if the United States did not have national security interests in containing Chinese or Russian or Iranian or North Korean ambitions, he said no. "Nobody would attack us militarily," he said.

Paul offers our victory in the Cold War as an example of how we can win wars by "diplomacy." But our victory in the Cold War was not diplomatic. Ronald Reagan's military buildup topping decades of military interventionism around the globe were critically important components of our defeat of the Soviet Union.

Asked if we should let Iran obtain nuclear weapons, he shrugged and said, "Well, that's not the end of the world." Iran is no threat to us, he said, because it can't invade us. He never acknowledged that Iran is a state sponsor of terror, and a nuclear Iran could one day supply terrorists with nuclear technology or weaponry.

Paul's repeated insistence that "There would be no risk of somebody invading us" is just what the isolationist Republicans of the 1930s believed -- right up until Pearl Harbor. Paul's idea that we can maintain peace by halting our projection of military strength has been proven wrong by history. But Rep. Paul is not about to let historical reality get in the way of his ideologically pure position.

Comment viewing options

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

Rep. Ron Paul: I advocate the same foreign policy the Founding F

Here is his response:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Rep.+Ron+Pa...

Rep. Ron Paul: I advocate the same foreign policy the Founding Fathers would
By RON PAUL

43 minutes ago

Any response to this paper's Friday editorial on my foreign policy position must rest on two fundamental assertions: first, that the Founding Fathers were not isolationists; and second, that their political philosophy -- the wisdom of the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Revolution itself -- is not just a primitive cultural relic.

If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers -- and soon voters -- is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?

A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.

American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade. The hostility toward American citizens overseas in the wake of our current foreign policy has actually made it difficult if not dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Is this not an isolationist consequence from a policy of aggressive foreign interventionism?

It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.

I do not believe that ideas have an expiration date, or that their value can be gauged by their novelty. The test for new and old is that of wisdom and experience, or as the editors wrote "historical reality," which argues passionately now against the course of anti-Constitutional interventionism.

A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is running for the Republican presidential nomination.

Great Response!

A Paul presidency would allow true core American values to influence the planet in a positive manner instead of trying to influence it at the point of a gun.

bump

b

Stop Whining

I have heard complaints about every article/interview which is not 100% complimentary to Ron Paul.
In New Hampshire the papers pretty much publish any opinion piece that isn't absolutely terribly written. When you see an opinion piece you don't like then write a reply.
When you hear a political piece that says Ron Paul probably won't win, then let it inspire you to work harder. But don't attack an analyst for giviing an assement you don't like. To say he isn't likely to win the nomination is a reasonable assement given the way he is doing now.
We can still win, but it is an uphill battle.

Russia still very dangerous

Is the Cold War over ? So what ? Russia is much stronger now then before ! Cold War is over JUST BECAUSE GRU and KGB wanted...stop dreaming about USA ending the Cold War.

Ron Paul is right, diplomacy is the answer...

Gee

And all this time I thought it was due to the intellectually vapid concept of communal property coupled with a command economy and a corrupt and absolutist government unable to maintain its lie of parity any longer, frankly I was surprized they lasted as long as they did-thank's for clearing that up.

By the way, I thought that free trade, and non-intervention was the answer....those are what I believe in at least...diplomacy brings up the specter of the UN-we out traded the sov's and scared the shit out of them with missile defense(something Dr. Paul supported, bty) plain and simple.

However it happened, that was a nasty place, and good riddence to it-without a shot fired-but yes, they are still very dangerous. Leave them the hell alone!

Mike Stahl

RON PAUL TO PUBLISH RESPONSE

Ron Paul's response to this editorial will be published in the Union Leader and online Monday... At least they are giving him a chance to refute that nonsense, which I'm sure he will do quite handily. Look for it...

Post his response...

Post up RP's response here will you? Thanks. Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

It is posted

:)

Pakistan

The article states that,"Iran is a state sponsor of terror, and a nuclear Iran could one day supply terrorists with nuclear technology or weaponry."

What about Pakistan? Pakistan already has a bomb and an Islamic fifth column. The genie is already out of the bottle. Our friends in Saudi Arabia are also working on a bomb. Maybe the author thinks that Saudi Arabia is incapable of exporting terrorists.

Same Paper Endorsed Buchanan in '96

Contrary to the earlier comments, the fact that this is an opinion piece worrys me more than if it was a "news" piece. Unless I'm missing something, I assume the writer's opinion is at least a reflection of the "Leader's" editorial bd. And, if so, this is perplexing considering that the Union Leader endorsed Buchanan who ran on a similar platform as Paul. I was kinda' hoping for a Paul endorsement form this paper.

Rattlesnake

"You can't keep sticking needles in a rattlesnake and expect not to get bitten." - Herbert Hoover just after Pearl Harbor. Robert Stinnett shows how FDR put the needles to Japan in his book "Day of Deceit". The points contained in the McCollum memo identify the actions FDR approved to agitate for war with Japan. Additionally, diplomatic negotiations were continually sabotaged. Admiral Kimmel and General Short were not provided with clear and timely intelligence data. Incredibly, FDR and some of his military cronies like General Marshall even saw the proposed bombing runs of Pearl Harbor and did nothing to alert Kimmel and Short about this.

In reqards to our WWII ally Russia, let's not forget that it invaded Poland together with Germany. And the outcome of WWII was that we gave Russia half of Europe and many of the 'liberated' Jews found themselves sent to the Gulag. Then for Western Europe, we funnelled billions of dollars to create socialist/welfare states.

Even George W. Bush recognized the result of fracturing Europe:
"For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end the oppression. The agreement in Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. ... The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs in history."

So where Hitler killed his millions, instead we got a US subsidized Stalin and Mao who killed their tens of millions. How's that for a history lesson?

Don't forget that our military existence subsidizes socialiasm

You're quite right about the lead up to WWII, and its aftermath however there is another reason for removing our military presence, particularly in europe. Our involvment in NATO does little more than relieve the governments of the EU from providing a truly adaquate defense-permitting utterly failed socialist programs to continue, courtesy of the US taxpayer. Enough!

By the way, what good did WWII do anyway, what country has the strongest economy, and essentially controls the direction of Fortre..oh, I'm sorry, the EU? (take a look at thier military technology, and short term conscription...then compare it to the strategy of the twenties....all without the expense of a large standing army)
And who has one of the largest economies in Asia?

If we are going to pay for these folks defense, we ought to at least give them a bill....a biiig bill.

We have 10000 nuclear weapons, and missile defense, we are not going to be attacked by a State anytime soon-nor can we lose a War.

We can be dragged into a humanitarian "nation building" enterprise, and no one can win one of those.

Terrorism is a threat, true, why not then kill the terrorists, rather than stick the stick further into the hornets nest-then act surprised at the stings.

If you want to defend Israel, great, start by getting the hell out of thier way! Isreal's existance is thier problem, one they are more than capable of dealing with-Iran only sabre rattles because they know we will restrain Israel-Insanity.

Mike Stahl

NH Union Leader...

Guess who made China become what it is, because you want cheap stuffs of anything, and if they would have wanted to harm "your warm trade relations, it would maybe sell some bonds instead of using, as you suppose, force. Guess who has made the Iranian issue become hot as it is today, yes, your policy of not even negotiating, when documents exists, that show military action or regime change made years ago has been the only option of this administration. The Soviets I need not ask you. But what is insupportable, is sending your children to war for oil(profits), not for any National Security threats, This is the government you trust. Then good luck for your future, you'll need it, and I wish Dr. Paul many more years of protecting the citizens of the USA before it's corporations.

Taomaster

P.S. Paul O'Neill's book tells some interesting stuff.

Taomaster

Another brainwashed genius

This person has no idea as to what he speaks. The cold war was not ended by a military presence in other countries. If anything, it created it by showing a consant threat to the Soviets and other countries.

As for Pearl Harbor, another falsehood. It is fairly well known that we wanted Japan to attack us to give reason to enter the war otherwise we would have positioned our ships in a far less convenient way to avoid a potential problem. This is not to mention that Hawaii is not in the continental U.S. and far easier to attack.

Ron Paul is exactly right, having these forces in other countries only antagonizes them and gives them reasons to hate us. And it wastes billions or trillions of our hard earned taxpayer money.

Regarding letting other countries have nukes is a complicated one and there are no easy answers, but having forces in other places in this technolgical age does nothing to suppress it. If we did anything, it would be to strategically take out any new nukes being made in other countries if diplomacy didn't work. There is no reason, such as in Iraq, to put major ground forces in place, risking our lives, when it accormplishes nothing but base building for big money corporations to be safe while raping the other country.

Bob W., Naples, FL

Bob W., Naples, FL

I don't think we should bombard them

First of all, this is not a news article, but an opinion piece. This is just one author's views, not news, and I'm sure it's presented as such in the newspaper. Even though it's unfavorable, at least they're finally discussing his policy. This is just one bad writing in the rush of positive coverage we've had this week. We can't expect everyone to take a positive view, and we shouldn't give them the idea that we're trying to silence all of Ron Paul's opponents.

NH Union Leader

I agree. We can't let this freak us out. They new when they publised that piece that it was gonna incite RP supporters. I'm sure they've already gotten some hits on it. Don't waste your valuable time and energy.

The more that RP gains support and popularity, the more slams and smears you are going to see. Don't let it get you so upset that it distracts you from recruitment and blogging the positive stuff for our campaign. It's going to be used as a distraction device.

And I personally think, we aint seen nothin' yet, as far as the mis-information and hit pieces on RP and all of us, his supporters, are going to get.

I'm just like you. When I see lies or a hit piece on Ron, I want to go find the person and push them down a flight of stairs. We gotta be smarter than our opponets.

Thanks

Dude, get your facts right!

"Paul offers our victory in the Cold War as an example of how we can win wars by "diplomacy." But our victory in the Cold War was not diplomatic. Ronald Reagan's military buildup topping decades of military interventionism around the globe were critically important components of our defeat of the Soviet Union."

Wrong!!! The defeat of the Soviet Union was not established by building up our military infra-structure during the Reagan years. Instead what happened was that the administration negotiated with the Saudis a oil price monopoly lowering the value per barrel- something like $20 per barrel. The Soviets could not compete with such low prices and could not sell their oil at higher prices. This caused a cash crunch and literally bankrupted the country due to loss of revenue.

Why do you think they were in Afghanistan? It was their hope to gain access to natural gas reserves and oil in the Southern Caspian Sea. Because they had little or no money, they were forced to leave.

dude, your right on

You gotta keep in mind, many small town journalist are pretty "wet behind the ears". But you're assesment of the Reagan's tactics is right on. If folks want to delve into yet another dirty little government secret, they should google on "Leo Wanta". During the course of oil price manipulation, and Rubble manipulation, Mr. Wanta, at the direction of Reagon (who chose not to inform his VP - Bush, Sr.because of his desire for greed) instigated many complex international financial manuevers with some government seed money ($100 million to be exact) with the intention of destabalizing Russia, and the results were so overwhelming, that the funds grew astronomically. There is a real war going on for the Bush/Cheney/Chertoff/Paulson team to get to those funds before Bush's term is out. But there is a problem. A federal judge has delcared the funds "rightfully owned" by the Wanta's Investment company. All he wants to do is return the money for the general good of the US, but the Bush team wants to take control of it - off record, of course. The money continues to be held in a custodial account. Another problem, some other countries joined in with Reagan and provided some seed money, and they want their share of the profit, which Wanta has no problem with......but the Bush team is pushing them back from the table, and they don't like it. Our government officials are NOT welcome anywhere in the world anymore, thanks to these creeps. You'll never read about this in the mainstream media. Do your own research. It's out there. Ron Paul knows this, he just can't talk about it now.

alan laney

Comments Locked?

I just tried to leave a comment, but couldn't. Would somebody else check and see if it's just me or if they've locked out the comments to prevent the six spammers from upsetting them? :-)

How ironic

"But Rep. Paul is not about to let historical reality get in the way of his ideologically pure position."

I think it's time he learned a history lesson on the declassified information that attributes FDR as provoking and then allowing the attack on Pearl
Harbor. We have a long way to go to inform the people, Davids.

I have a feeling Alex Jones is blowing a fuse wishing he could educate this guy. lol

Just left them a comment...

Just left them a comment...

Don't curse the darkness, light a candle

There are no comments displayed

I commented anyway - who knows what they are thinking...

Oh wait, didn't NH just close their primary? They are SCARED

Brettrix
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/941