Ron Paul's "noninterventionism" fraud

"..."Only individuals have rights or "sovereignty"; and only those governments that recognize the individual rights of their own people have any legitimate claims to exist. Dictatorships thus have no "rights" or "sovereignty."..."

Throughout history, there have been damn few governments created by free men that have retained the recognition of individual rights of their own people for long times. The USA was carefully crafted by our Founding Fathers to endure as Free Republic, endowed by God with specific inalienable rights, and a methodology to maintain those rights.

Truly free States are seldom conquered by outside forces. They decay from within, usually by avaricious forces masquerading as 'liberals' or 'progressives', who wish only to 'better' our lives while empowering themselves and enriching their own.

The USA is still a beacon of hope for many people in the world, and the bane of those who would enslave them, including some who call themselves 'Americans'. Our USSC will soon examine our Second Amendment to our Constitution to see if it means what it plainly states. We will then know how our Government intends to treat us in the future.

I agree that this deserves its' own thread, friend Tolik, and Ron Paul is quite insane .................... FRegards

The US isn't located anywhere near Germany or Japan either. Your argument-from-location is equally valid against U.S. involvement in World War 2.

Well, in case it needs mentioning again, Germany and Japan actually declared war on the US first, so a war response was obligatory.

But more than that, let's not forget that Europe has strong historical, social, cultural and institutional ties to the US (and Canada). Most of our descendants came from Europe, the legal and educational systems are the basically the same, we even listen to the same types of music!

NONE of those ties exist when comparing the Middle East.

(sorry for the delay in replying)

Well, in case it needs mentioning again, Germany and Japan actually declared war on the US first, so a war response was obligatory.

You didn't base your earlier criticism on whether the other country had declared war on us. You based it on how far away it was from us. If you're now withdrawing that criticism, I've made my point.

By the way it's not true that "a war response was obligatory". We could have refused to fight them; we could have sued for terms for example. So what if they "declared war on" us? Neither country was in any sort of position to invade the U.S. We let Japan have the Pacific and Germany take England and their beefs with us would have vanished. And maybe that would have been better in your eyes. After all, those countries are so far away from us, which apparently makes it wrong to engage in warfare against them.

But more than that, let's not forget that Europe has strong historical, social, cultural and institutional ties to the US (and Canada).

Phew! Thanks for reminding me! I totally forgot about that.

Yes, that's a great point, because everyone knows that it's only ok to make war against another country if they have "strong historical, social, cultural and institutional ties to" yours. Otherwise, it's not allowed. (Or something)

Sorry, I know you think you're making a point, I'm just not sure what it is.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.