Ron Paul: A Cautionary Tale

reagangirl.com ^ | 12/18/11

[KevinDavis]

"None of the four wars in my lifetime came about because we were too strong. It is weakness that invites adventurous adversaries to make mistaken judgments.

America is the most peaceful, least warlike nation in modern history. We are not the cause of all the ills of the world. We’re a patient and generous people. But for the sake of our freedom and that of others, we cannot permit our reserve to be confused with a lack of resolve."

*Ronald Reagan*

[chilepup]

Why is it that all Paultards throw out what Reagan said about Ron Paul? It is irrelevant since the cult leader threw Reagan under the bus. Also, why is it that anytime anyone blasts Paul and his ineptitude regarding Foreign policy, that his supporters tell us we “misunderstand” his positions. We don’t misunderstand...we are just not willfully stupid. Ron Paul supporters are. Nuf said.

[algernonpj]

It seems you have misunderstood Ron Paul's position, which was perfectly expressed by Ronald Reagan, above.

Our current foreign policy weakens our military, and saps our treasury and our resolve by spreading our military thinly all over the world.

Ron Paul's position is to rebuild our military strength and use it only for national defense.

Thanks.

"...I have trouble believing the foreign policy of the past 70 years has served the best interests of the United States....

W e pump $40 billion a year into the Japanese economy by providing for essentially all of Japan’s defense. At the same time, Japan out competes us in the market, in effect subsidizing their exports, which then undermines our own domestic steel and auto industries. ..

Loyally standing by our ally Israel is in conflict with satisfying the Arab interests that are always represented by big business in each administration. We arm Jordan and Egypt, rescue the PLO (on two occasions), and guarantee that the American taxpayer will be funding both sides of any conflict in the Middle East. ...

Our official policy is currently is to be tough on communism, but at the same time promote lower-interests, allowing Red China to buy nuclear technology, F-16s and other military technology – all this by the strongest anti-Communist administration that we’ve had in decades. ...

We subsidize Red China’s nuclear technology; at the same time, we allow Jane Fonda to ruin ours.

We continuously sacrifice ourselves to the world by assuming the role of world policeman, which precipitates international rises on a regular basis, all the while neglecting our own defenses. New planes go overseas while our Air National Guard is forced to use planes 20 years old. ...

September 19, 1984
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON FOUR TERMS IN CONGRESS
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

[algernonpj]

The problem with the GOP elite is that they will resort to whatever it takes to prevent anyone who upsets the status quo or did not grow up as part of the ruling class.

IMHO free enterprise and capitalism have been replaced by crony capitalism / corporatism / fascism.

The enemy within has been very successful in creating a story for the ‘left’ about economic, social, educational, and environmental ‘justice’, sustainability, concensus and a story for the ‘right’ about ‘free trade’, 'comparative advantage', free movement of goods and natural persons, and 'profits uber alles' with no reference to patriotism or morality. Both stories lead to the same place - destruction of the American economy, security, traditional culture, values and its pesky middle class under the tyranny of global communism.

Ron Paul's budget alone is a major threat to the status quo.

[algernonpj]

There is a difference between “isolationism” and “anti-interventionism” which critics of Paul seem incapable of grasping. Perhaps they don’t want to understand it. Another year or two of the consequences of break-the-bank interventionism may help to illuminate the difference.

Well said.

[steve8714]

Five trillion in welfare and who knows how many trillions in corporate welfare is what has broken our bank.
I have less of an issue with us fighting than I do the hand of an attorney on every gun.
We won WWII because while our soldiers were getting the job done the Nazis were awaiting orders. We lost Vietnam because we turned into Germany.

[steve8714]

You give us a link to nowhere.

[algernonpj]

Try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27etat

[steve8714]

Thank you. This is in large part sourced from three papers, which may or may not have had a prior agenda, and it makes more of a case for British intervention than American.

[DesertRhino]

“the raw stupidity of believing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be deterred by MAD”

Besides oil,, the muslims biggest export is chest beating blather. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is indeed deterred by MAD. That is the reason they won’t launch an all out attack this afternoon. After all, if they were actually as suicidal as is claimed, they could have the 12th imam back by sundown, couldnt they?

The loser cannon fodder in islam is indeed suicidal. Goaded on by huge financial rewards for their impoverished families, the chance for women to to restore lost “honor”, or kids raised in a massadra since age 5,,,,However, i see no evidence whatsoever of their leaders being willing to commit PERSONAL suicide, or to have Mecca, Tehran, and Syria melted.

The final proof of the lie of their supposed dedication to the faith is that they all keep up with western decadence,,in spades, in Paris, the UAE, Qatar, London, etc. They can indeed be deterred by MAD. The reason they are so desperate for nukes is that it makes you much harder to invade. (like Saddam)

[ex-snook]

Reagan didn’t live long enough to see Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Kosovo, Somalia. I don’t know if he included Korea and Vietnam.

[KevinDavis]

Then Paul called Reagan a failure in 1988.

[KevinDavis]

Then Paul called Reagan a failure in 1988.

[KevinDavis]

Then Paul called Reagan a failure in 1988.

[SunkenCiv]

Not so much neo-isolationist as pseudo-constitutionalist (and in that regard, not just his foreign policy).

[runninglips]

How could the armistice after WW I have been any more unstable?

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

“How could the armistice after WW I have been any more unstable?”

The more interesting question is, “How could the end of the Great War have resulted in a more stable outcome if the US had stayed out?”

With a stalemate rather than the rout enabled by US intervention, the British Empire and the French would not have been in a position to carve up the Middle East and impose a punitive reparations regime on a prostrate German state and collapsing Austro-Hungarian empire, a settlement whose dire effects JM Keyenes accurately assessed in 1919.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economic_Consequences_of_the_Peace

[runninglips]

I can say with full belief, that our entrance into the war indirectly caused the second WW to be inevitable. Since we did fight that second war, our Marshall plan was also had within it the fertile seeds of socialist takeovers of the European countries. We left them in a position to being our dependents. That dependency on our protection, and the willingness of their people to allow another to rebuild them, allowed them to spend many millions on social programs. This directly led to the current collapse of the socialist dream. They didn’t have to worry about national defense, so we subsidized their own dependency on government.